Hump day

Wednesday, affectionately called "hump day" by radio personalities. By the way, who invented the term "hump day" from Wikipedia...

An American English idiom for Wednesday is "hump day" a reference to making it through to the middle of the work week as getting "over the hump."

Gee that was enlightening- sorry I asked. Oh well. My "hump day" includes getting through some coverage from my trip to Costa Rica, including a couple of stories, a column and - always my least favorite task - photo cut lines. Meanwhile, I wanted to echo David Mitchell's thoughts in his column in the Nov. 17 issue of The Packer on the helpfulness of industry sources to our weekly news efforts. Between last night and this morning, I received helpful calls/emails from Kathy Means, Nancy Foster, Craig Regelbrugge, Robert Guenther and Lorelei DiSogra.

This morning, Lorelei DiSogra sent an email about pending approval in Europe of the snack program there and a link to a recent USDA offer sheet for fresh cut apple purchases.

Nancy Foster sent a link to a FAQ page on the E-Verify rule for federal contractors and specifically how the exemption for agriculture is worded.

Other headlines grabbed from the Web:

Fresh & Easy: 100 stores and counting

Aldi's philosophy
Toronto campaign to raise local food for food banks

Specter of stag-deflation looming larger

Asian markets mixed as Japan falls into recession

Food banks feeling the crunch

China's pain hurts us too

Eurozone falls into recession

Irresponsible reporting making the problem worse

Branded credit cards see rising delinquencies

Anti-foreclosure plan essential

Liquidity and leverage will be focus for food and beverage industry in 2009

E-Verify rules and exemptions

Industry leaders were worried in August about the implications of the executive order and June proposed rule that mandates E-Verify for federal contractors and subcontractors. Now with the final rule issued, some of those concerns are eased. Look for coverage in The Packer about the what the USDA AMS says about E-Verify exemptions and the federal feeding programs. And what about the DOD Fresh program? Developing.....

Headline roundup - Nov. 18

More on e-verify, immigration and economy..found on the World Wide Web this morning:


Half of world faces water shortage by 2080 because of global warming From the IHT:
Wong said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that as many as 2 billion people won't have sufficient access to clean water by 2050. That figure is expected to rise to 3.2 billion by 2080 — nearly tripling the number who now do without it.

Anti-salmonella effort lacked coordination, report says From Bloomberg in Salt Lake Tribune

The report called for an examination of how quickly information was shared among local, state and federal officials, and whether they fully disclosed relevant information to one another. The outbreak shows the need for safety standards, which can be created by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the report.

Economists say recession is here and will last

The consensus among economists surveyed by the Fed is that the country entered the recession in April, that it will last 14 months and would drive the U.S. unemployment rate, now 6.6 percent, to 7.6 percent by the third quarter of 2009.

Final rule on e-verify said to burden contractors

Under the new rule, which goes into effect Jan. 15, the government estimates that 168,000 employers will have to screen 3.8 million employees in 2009, up from the 70,000 employers using the system this year.

Contractors are worried that E-Verify is not ready to handle a huge volume of activity and may result in people being laid off or contracts being delayed until the system can manage the larger volumes, said Trey Hodgkins, vice president of federal government programs for the Information Technology Association of America.



Thanksgiving feast gobbling up more food dollars

“Thanksgiving food prices are up about 6 percent compared to last year,” Alexander said. “What’s interesting is the difference between grocery store prices compared to restaurant prices. Grocery store prices are increasing at a pace of 7.6 percent, compared to a pace of 4.5 percent for restaurants.”


Europe relaxes rule on fresh produce imports

Fresh produce exporters have an opportunity to boost their deliveries to the key EU market, which has relaxed its marketing standard rules on fruits and vegetables to improve trade.

In what is now dubbed “the return of the curvy cucumber” the EU said it had repealed specific marketing standards for 26 types of fruits and vegetables as part of efforts to cut down on red tape in trade.


Making healthy choices in local schools

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides students at Bennington Elementary School with a healthy snack once a week. Carol Adinolfi, the program's director, said it is about teaching students through their senses.

"Rather than being told, students are experiencing it for themselves," she said Wednesday. " ... It's about exposing them to fruits and vegetables they've never had. Recently, we had a pear tasting, which started getting students thinking about the enjoyment of food, the delectability."

Texas legislature to consider immigration bills

The proposals go well beyond the usual proposals to require ID to vote or requiring citizenship to get a driver's license.One would require public schools to check the citizenship of their students. Another would require illegal immigrants to live in self-described "sanctuary cities."Author Leo Berman, R-Tyler, said he filed it mainly to make a point to cities that describe themselves as "sanctuaries," or havens for illegal immigrants. "The federal government is requiring us to give free education and health care to illegals," Mr. Berman said. "It's the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our nation."

Trust but E-Verify

The fate of the E-verify program is drawing more and more attention in newsrooms across the country, with the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation each taking up the issue from opposing views. With the current economic environment, there is no way in my view that the E-verify system is not extended and bolstered. Here is an excerpt from Cato and Heritage:

How to save E-verify - grow the federal government From Cato:

But the productive sector would be less productive under his eleven-point plan for E-Verify, which I will review and critique ever-so-briefly:

• Require universal employment verification. Taking E-Verify national would increase yet again, in yet another way, the burden on productive U.S. employers. It’s the kind of bureaucratic accretion that Republican revolutionaries in 1994 came to town to stop.
• Reauthorize E-Verify and provide adequate funding for implementation. Spend that billion dollars (and get rid of those revenues).
• Improve government data to further reduce erroneous tentative non-confirmations and provide opportunities for individuals to review the accuracy of their personal data in government files. Among other things, this is the idea that there could be a system in which people could use government-licensed contractors to check whether the information about them in government databases was correct. Perhaps “government-licensed contractors” would do a better job than the government itself of preventing identity fraudsters from checking the information of other people, but it’s not likely. At its core, a national E-Verify system requires a national biometric database to work well.
• Penalize employers who continue to employ workers who have failed verification. These are those fines - luckily, not jail - for employers.
• Facilitate information sharing between DHS and SSA. That’s dataveillance. There will be a lot more of it in the future. Real-time or near-real-time monitoring of your behavior through your data.
• Increase penalties, in law and in practice, for unlawful hiring. More fines on employers and more money spent on enforcement.
• Issue clarifying letters to employers regard­ing Social Security mismatch notifications. This sounds innocuous, but “clarifying” in this case creates the legal predicate for fining employers when they have failed to be good deputies of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
• Do not restrict state efforts to limit the em­ployment of illegal aliens. This doesn’t directly grow the federal bureaucracy. It suggests states should force employers to submit to federal bureaucracy.
• Establish supplemental procedures to pre­vent employment by means of identity fraud. Again, a national ID is essentially required to implement a national system for adjudicating personal rights, but Rector proposes something less: a complex program where people would be notified if it appeared that their identities were being used by others in the employment sector. The logistical and data security issues with this are forbidding. It’s something like describing how to build the cathedral of Notre Dame by saying, “Well, you put up a church . . . .”
• Establish supplemental procedures to reduce “off-the-books” employment by illegal aliens. More dataveillance and more penalizing of employers.
• Incorporate the current new-hire data collec­tion for child support into E-Verify. Yet more dataveillance - rolling employment information about every American into federal government databases.

Last week at the Heartland Institute’s 24th Anniversary Dinner, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation debated immigration policy with Peter Brimelow of VDARE.com. Hornberger returned again and again to the theme that immigration law is a statist interference with the freedom of migrants and citizens alike.

He did not force the scales from the eyes of Brimelow or many of the other immigration opponents in the room, but people who appreciate freedom and limited government hope for the day when those scales do fall.

Reducing illegal immigration through e-verify Heritage Foundation:

Since employment is the magnet that draws illegal immigrants into the U.S., it follows that the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to shrink the employ­ment magnet. To accomplish this without resorting to the method of routinely rounding up and deporting thousands of illegal workers only to have them return and obtain another readily available job, policy should focus on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants and let general employment rules rather than individ­ual arrests drive the reduction in illegal immigration.

The policy should be based on the principles of empowerment, deterrence,and information. It should empower honest employers by giving them the tools to determine quickly and accurately whether a new hire is an authorized worker. It should hold employers free from penalty if they inadvert­ently hire an illegal worker after following the pre­scribed procedures.

Further, the policy should empower honest employers by freeing them from the burden of com­peting with dishonest businesses that deliberately hire illegal workers. This means that it must deter dishonest employers who willfully employ unveri­fied and unlawful workers by imposing substantial penalties on the employers when such hiring occurs. For deterrence to work, however, both the government and employers must have timely and accurate information regarding new hires.

The most promising solution to this problem is a tool called E-Verify. A real-time, Web-based verifica­tion system run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administra­tion (SSA), E-Verify can determine with great accu­racy the authenticity of the personal information and credentials offered by new hires. In most cases, verification occurs almost instantly.

Later...

Of the millions of illegal immigrants in this country, the best evidence suggests that some 50 percent to 60 percent of this employment occurs "on the books."[3] It is unclear how much "on-the-books" employment of illegal aliens is done with fic­titious information and how much is done by iden­tity fraud.

To reduce illegal immigration, all three means of illegal employment must be addressed, but this need for a broad approach should not be used as an excuse to do nothing. Although it is true that reduc­ing "off-the-books" employment will be the most difficult task, that does not mean that the govern­ment should do little or nothing about the high lev­els of "on-the-books" illegal employment until it has devised a foolproof means of stopping underground employment as well. Proper policy should take the critical first step of controlling "on-the-books" employment of illegal aliens.

E-Verify: on the ropes?

Given its potential severe impact on the industry and its inherent flaws, many produce industry leaders wouldn't mind if E-Verify went away. Not everyone feels that way. From The Washington Times this morning, a opinion piece by Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform:



No one knows exactly what the fallout will be from the government's trillion-dollar bailout of our nation's debt-ridden financial institutions. What is certain is that in the short and medium term, the pain resulting from years of mismanagement, malfeasance, fraud, and criminal negligence on the part of the corporate elite — and the lack of oversight by Congress and the administration — will be felt by millions of Americans who did nothing to create the mess.
Even before our entire economic system reached the verge of total meltdown last week, there were unmistakable signs that we were in for some very hard times. Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. economy has shed more than half-a-million jobs and the rise in unemployment shows no sign of abating. With an election looming just six weeks away, the economy, jobs and preservation of the middle class are just about the only issues on the minds of voters.

No one knows exactly what the fallout will be from the government's trillion-dollar bailout of our nation's debt-ridden financial institutions. What is certain is that in the short and medium term, the pain resulting from years of mismanagement, malfeasance, fraud, and criminal negligence on the part of the corporate elite — and the lack of oversight by Congress and the administration — will be felt by millions of Americans who did nothing to create the mess.
Even before our entire economic system reached the verge of total meltdown last week, there were unmistakable signs that we were in for some very hard times. Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. economy has shed more than half-a-million jobs and the rise in unemployment shows no sign of abating. With an election looming just six weeks away, the economy, jobs and preservation of the middle class are just about the only issues on the minds of voters.
But even as millions of American workers face an uncertain economic future, one of the few government protections for their jobs is about to disappear. Unless the Senate reauthorizes the E-Verify system that allows employers to avoid hiring illegal aliens by electronically checking workers' Social Security numbers, the program will expire in November. Reauthorization is hardly controversial. The House has already reauthorized a five-year extension of E-Verify by a lopsided 407-2 vote; it is more than 99 percent accurate; and several states now require businesses to verify workers' immigration status.
Only one obstacle stands between American workers and continued protection against losing their jobs to illegal aliens: Sen, Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat. Reauthorization of E-Verify by the Senate is being held hostage by Mr. Menendez, who is demanding the inclusion of an amendment to "recapture" unused immigration visas dating back to 1992.
In all, Mr. Menendez's amendment would require the issuance of some 570,000 new green cards — a figure roughly equal to the number of jobs our economy has lost this year alone. About half of those green cards would be allocated to work-related immigration categories and the other half to family-based categories, most of whom would also be entering the labor force.


Mr. Menendez may not be able to see Wall Street from his front porch in New Jersey, but he can probably see many of the investment bankers and hedge-fund managers who created the biggest economic disaster this country has seen since the Great Depression (and no doubt he sees many of them at his campaign fundraisers). These and other captains of American business continue to press for more workers, even as unemployment rises, and the elimination of protections for American workers such as E-Verify.
Over the next six weeks, American voters are certain to hear expressions of concern from politicians of every stripe and promises of real reform in Washington. Meanwhile, as the days pass by, it is increasingly likely that the Senate will decamp from Washington without reauthorizing an existing program that is actually working to the benefit of middle-class workers.
Given the trillion-dollar disaster many in Congress failed to avert, and the far-reaching repercussions of the massive bailout plan to this and future generations of American workers, it would seem that the least the Senate leadership can do is remove the roadblock that is Mr. Menendez and take a vote on the E-Verify reauthorization bill that passed the House by a 405-vote margin. Failure to do so will be a clear indication that in spite of the all the hand wringing and fingerpointing, the culture of special-interest politics in Washington that brought our economy to precipice is not likely to change.


There is every justification for reauthorizing E-Verify - a program that already exists and has already proven to protect American workers from losing their jobs to illegal aliens. There is no possible rationale for holding a fire sale on more than half a million new green cards while our economy is teetering on the edge and millions of American workers are likely to pay for mistakes they had no part in making. And there is certainly no justification for holding E-Verify hostage to the demands of those who made the trillion-dollar mistakes.


Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Ethanol still golden

As I review some of my missed emails during the week I was in Honduras, I note that the renewable fuel standard was upheld by the EPA. Here is reaction from the American Farm Bureau Federation on Aug. 7:


The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to deny a request submitted by the state of Texas to reduce the nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard sends a positive signal regarding the substantial economic benefits of renewable fuels, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“We’re pleased that the EPA did not turn its back on the promise of renewable fuels,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. Texas requested a 50-percent waiver of the national volume requirement for the RFS.
Implementation of the RFS will continue as legislated in the Energy Policy Act of 2007, according to the EPA.
The RFS target for 2008 is 9 billion gallons of renewable fuels including ethanol and biodiesel. That rises to 11.1 billion gallons in 2009 and 36 billion gallons in 2022.



TK: The escalation of the standard for renewable fuels demands a revolution in the use of non food crops to supply the biomass for fuel production. Failing that, I don't see how the goal of 36 billion gallons by 2022 is remotely realistic.


Here is more etanol reaction and other biofuel news:

Record oil prices blamed for high corn prices

Bid to plant genetically modified trees in the UK for biofuel

Improved reactoin data heats up biofuels

Ethanol is not an evil plot concocted by our farmers

Following Buffett's railroad tracks From that story in Seeking Alpa

There are more than 173,000 miles of track in North America, with 150,000 miles in the United States alone. As an industry, it's enormous, generating $42 billion in annual revenues. Some of that revenue is made by moving 30% of this country's grain harvest and more than 40% of all inter-city freight. That's more than any other mean of freight transportation.
As the agriculture industry brings more than 79 new ethanol plants online in the next two years, they expect much of the 12 billion gallons of ethanol to be shipped by railcar. (Ethanol cannot be transported in pipes like oil.)
Railroads also carry more than 65% of the nation's coal, which provides more than half of the nation's electricity. As our power demands increase, so will the coal companies' demand for shipping.

E-Verify renewed by the House for five years

Big Apple noted this in the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group today in this post. The news, pure and simple , is that E-Verify has been renewed as a voluntary program by the House for five years. The Senate still has to act or the program will expire in November. I would venture to say that few agricultural employers would complain if the program goes away, but it appears that will not be the case. From this press account from Government Executive:

House lawmakers have reached an agreement on legislation that would renew a program that allows employers to verify the legal status of their workers, breaking a stalemate between two committees over concerns about funding for the Social Security Administration.

The bill emerged from behind-the-scenes negotiations among lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

The two sides had been at odds over writing language that would both reauthorize the Homeland Security Department's E-Verify program and preserve Social Security's ability to meet its core mission of providing services to seniors and the disabled.

The bill would reauthorize for five years the E-Verify program, which is an online tool that employers can use to confirm a worker's information against Homeland Security and Social Security databases.

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.

PMA: Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker

Julia Stewart of PMA passes on this link to PMA's "Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker" Web page. Whitaker is the chief scientific officer for the Produce Marketing Association. Here are a few of the questions and responses from the Web page, published yesterday:




How does a public health traceback work?
As a foodborne illness investigation moves forward, epidemiology and testing identify the causative microorganism and vehicle or food item that carry it. Then the activity shifts to a trackback investigation that is generally conducted by FDA in conjunction with various states and/or counties. One of the key questions the epidemiologists ask patients is where they contacted the food product – restaurant, retail store, family picnic, school, church social, friend’s house, etc. If they believe the patient is a credible source, they then visit the point of service, that is, the location where food was purchased (generally a restaurant or retail store).
From these visits, FDA and state investigators begin tracing the original source of the product. Stores and restaurants often have multiple sources of any one item, such as tomatoes, so the investigators need to determine what suppliers potentially provided the item under examination. They also need to assess the time periods and quantities of product involved, along with the various types or varieties of the product (e.g. for tomatoes, round red, cherry, Roma, grape, on-the-vine, etc.).
The efficiency of this process is largely based on access to purchase and receipt records, and their completeness. As the investigators visit multiple sites identified by credible patients, they can begin again to look for common threads, i.e. suppliers that are common to the sites. At this point the investigators contact the common suppliers and begin tracing the product back to the production site. They generally visit the distribution, production or supply facilities to interview the operators and view records.
The produce industry is a complex industry with many links in the distribution chain, so trackback can be challenging. Again, the efficiency of the traceback is dependent upon cooperation by those involved and availability of all records associated with the suspect product. From the data collected in this process, the investigators hope to identify a specific site or collection of ranches/farms where the initial contamination may have occurred. Of course, this is a vital outcome for the investigation and has very real meaning for our industry. It is at this point that the regulatory agencies can definitively say they can limit their alert or recall to product from a specific supplier, processor or ranch. This often allows the rest of the industry to supply and sell products without safety concerns.
Once the FDA and state investigators identify a supplier and/or sites, they begin the task of searching for a cause of the contamination. They often inspect the site and facilities and evaluate production records to verify that a food safety program was in place and was being followed as required by the plan. They may also choose to sample raw or finished products (especially if the same lots are still available), and may wish to take environmental samples from fields, equipment, agricultural inputs and water for microbial testing. They may interview employees and take personal health histories to see whether anyone who may have contacted the product had a similar infection. Their goal is to try to find the cause for contamination so it can be mitigated and the industry can learn from it.
Learning the process health authorities follow illustrates why it isn’t just a matter of going to a store or restaurant where a patient says he or she ate, and finding the supplier. The regulatory agencies’ goal is to protect public health. Therefore, they must follow the process to gather information systematically so they do not reach false conclusions, which could cause more injury to the public and ultimately to the industry.

Since the illness onset dates in this situation are so broad, what is the likelihood of finding the source?
Tomatoes can be a multi-harvest crop, i.e. tomatoes are harvested off the same vine or plant over a period of several weeks. Tomatoes also can remain in commerce for several weeks, as they can be distributed directly or sent to repackers who in turn hold them and ripen them as the market demands. So, it is not too surprising that the onset dates are broadly separated. As to the likelihood of finding the source, tomatoes represent a difficult challenge for investigators because of the many types of finished products and the diverse production locations. This is further complicated by the fact that the onset period straddled a seasonal transition point for Mexico, California and Florida. Given these issues, I think that as of the date of this writing (June 9) it is still likely that FDA will find a source, whether it is a specific grower, farm, packing shed, distribution center, etc., to which the records of commerce trace. What is more problematic is actually finding the S. saintpaul strain at the site. That has often proven hard to accomplish with any foodborne pathogen, as the bacteria that cause these outbreaks are present only in very low numbers and may not survive in soils or equipment surfaces or other touch points very long, especially if the soils are turned or routine clean-up procedures diminish their populations.


What’s the risk that FDA will implicate a region, rather than a farm? What are we doing to keep them disciplined?
The logical sequence of the investigation and traceback (see related question) is that FDA will identify a region first as they look at suppliers to points of service. Once investigators identify regions, they will begin to use the records and shipping documents to narrow the investigation to specific growers or packers. Once the FDA has a region, the additional traceback efforts to find a specific grower and farm take a few days depending on the quality of the shipping records. By its very nature, FDA is a very disciplined organization. Agents make decisions based on data and records. This can be frustrating for the industry in terms of the time it takes to perform a traceback, and FDA’s unwillingness to jump steps to identify a supplier. By the same token, this approach and adherence to process keeps the traceback focused and decisions fact-based.


What about Florida tomatoes, are they OK?
As of June 8, FDA has excluded Arkansas, California, Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Belgium, Canada, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Israel, the Netherlands and Puerto Rico. FDA understands the urgency the industry feels toward narrowing the sources down as quickly as possible so as not to penalize an entire industry and have excluded those regions. Other regions or states had not been excluded as of June 8. (Note: To view a current list of excluded production areas, visit www.pma.com/issues/tomatoesjun08.cfm.)


What about hot house, organic or hydroponic tomatoes?
Many types of tomatoes are sold across the country. Based upon interviews with people who became ill, as of June 8, the FDA and CDC pinpointed round red and plum/Roma tomatoes as linked to the illnesses in specific states. And, based on those interviews, FDA has excluded yellow tomatoes, cherry and grape tomatoes, tomatoes still on the vine and home-grown tomatoes. There is no distinction as to how the tomatoes were grown, e.g. field production, hot house, hydroponic, organic. Therefore, as of June 8, if the product is a round red, plum/Roma tomato, regardless of how it was produced, the alert applies to that product and to items made from that product unless they were grown in the excluded areas. (Note: To view a current list of excluded production areas, visit www.pma.com/issues/tomatoesjun08.cfm.)


Why did FDA go direct to consumers with a de facto recall?
The function of FDA is to protect public health. FDA’s consumer alerts have been driven by the epidemiology and the Salmonella fingerprint testing results identifying the genetic identity of S. saintpaul in people who became sick. Until CDC and FDA are sure the onset period is over, in other words that no one else could get sick, FDA has the obligation to alert consumers against the food item that might cause them to become ill. As of June 8, there had been no specific food recall, strictly speaking, as the source of the tomatoes in question was still unknown. Based on the alerts, retailers and foodservice operators and restaurants have made business decisions whether to provide red round, plum, or Roma tomatoes to consumers. Some have made the decision to remove these types of tomatoes from the market, as it would be unlikely that consumers would want them because FDA has advised them not to eat them.

I am using Romas to make fresh salsa for sale. How do we reassure our clients?
The best advice is to check the CDC and/or FDA Web sites daily to determine (note: the FDA and CDC sites can be accessed via www.pma.com/issues/tomatoesjun08.cfm) : (1) what production areas have been excluded; and (2) whether any S. saintpaul illnesses have been identified in your state and confirmed to have been caused by certain tomatoes.

Can we test products in warehouses now, and release the product if it tests negative?
While this sounds like a great idea, unfortunately this would not be advisable. The problem lies in the sampling. The general feeling in the scientific community is that these contaminations that lead to foodborne illness outbreaks are at low levels and not widely spread. This seems very logical and makes sense when you consider that if the contaminations were large and spread over the majority of the tomato fruit from a given field or farm, then many more than 100 people would be sick to date.
So, that puts us in a position of trying to understand how many tomatoes we would have to sample and test to be sure that we could find every tomato fruit that was contaminated, so we could keep them from going to consumers. Remember, even one sick consumer is one too many.
We could just test every tomato. It would be expensive, but let’s say we could do that. The problem is that the test essentially destroys the tomato. To perform the test required, the tomato is cut up and then juiced so that the microorganism can be isolated.
If you cannot test every tomato, then you need to rely on statistical sampling to have confidence that you can eliminate any tomato that is contaminated. The problem here is that scientists believe the contamination incidents are so infrequent, random and at low levels that there is not a satisfactory statistical solution to the problem.
Think of a field of tomatoes, and let’s say there are 1,000 plants in the block we want to harvest. Let’s also say that we are going to harvest 20 tomatoes from each plant over the next two weeks. That is 20,000 total tomatoes. Now let’s say that somehow during the harvest period, 200 fruits have become contaminated with a very low level of Salmonella. You have all your tomatoes in boxes; how do you sample to be sure you can eliminate those that are contaminated?
More visually, pretend you have 20,000 white marbles in a huge box and mixed in with them are 200 black ones randomly blended in. Since you cannot see bacteria on tomato fruits, our visual analogy would require us to select our black marbles blindly, so pretend that you are blindfolded and trying to pick out the black marbles from our huge box. How many times would you have to “sample” the box to get all 200 black marbles? It is a daunting question, and one we cannot answer now.

Why is it taking so long to identify the source, is there an issue with a lack of industry capability to trace product?
The industry’s traceback capability is not an issue at this time. FDA and the involved states started their traceback efforts early the week of June 2, and were still working through their process at the time of this writing (June 9). The industry is working to provide FDA with information on tomato product movements and production areas to help them focus efforts in the trace.

Are tomatoes safe if they have been through a chlorine wash?
The use of sanitizers in fruit and vegetable wash systems is often misinterpreted. Many believe the sanitizer, e.g. chlorine, sanitizes the surface of the product being washed. In fact, sanitizers are used in wash systems to keep the wash water clean, not to sanitize the fruit or vegetable. The effectiveness of the sanitizer in keeping the water clean is dependent upon how clean the water is (i.e., the level of organic material, e.g. dirt), its pH, the sanitizer used, its concentration, etc. It is important to keep the water clean because, by the very fact that washing removes surface dirt and some portion of the bacteria and fungi on the surface, the wash system could easily become a reservoir for any dirt or bacteria that are washed off. In effect, the wash system could become a contamination point if it wasn’t treated with a sanitizer to kill microorganisms that wash off in the system.
Unfortunately, not all bacteria are washed off during washing. We know that most wash systems reduce the microbial populations on the surface of fruits and vegetables by about 2 logs. So what does that mean? If the product you are washing comes into the packinghouse with 1,000,000 organisms per square centimeter (not uncommon), then after washing in a well-maintained system it would likely have 10,000 organisms per square centimeter. So if raw product enters a packinghouse with a human pathogen on it, the pathogen most likely will not be reduced sufficiently during the wash to prevent illness.
Remember that surface microorganisms on fruits and vegetables are very common. Some are beneficial to the plant, some are beneficial to those consuming the product and some may be plant pathogens. In some ways these surface microorganisms actually protect the product as they compete with human pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli if they should contact the product and limit their growth or perhaps even eliminate them over time.

Why is FDA focusing on point of consumption? The tomatoes sent from a distribution center (DC) to stores in outbreak states are the same as tomatoes sent from the same DC to stores in other states. How is that protecting public health?
This is really several questions that cover many aspects of tomato distribution and FDA procedures. First, the FDA focuses on point of consumption simply because the agency has to start where the illnesses are actually occurring. It is from the people that are actually ill that health investigators can begin to gather important epidemiological data relating to what the person ate in the days leading up to the onset of illness and if that link can be made, where they might have consumed the contaminated tomatoes. From this point-of-consumption data, the FDA can then move to the point-of-service locations, and then on to determining where the tomatoes originally came from.
Distribution centers (DCs) are set up by retailers to serve defined geographical areas by acting as a storage center that receives products from the production locations and warehouses them until they are needed to replenish the stores in the region served by that DC. Often, retail chains will source products like tomatoes from several vendors. As an example, a retailer may use five or six vendors to supply red round tomatoes at any given time, and tomatoes from all or some of these vendors may be in any given DC. Retailers do this to ensure that their customers always have round red tomatoes available so that if one grower or supplier has a weather-related problem and can’t harvest, the other vendors can cover the volume. Price, logistics, quality, season and potential to supply other items also play into the concept of multiple vendors supplying individual DCs. Therefore, it is quite likely that a DC that sends tomatoes from a supplier who inadvertently supplied contaminated tomatoes can also ship tomatoes to stores from other suppliers whose tomatoes are safe to eat.
As part of the FDA’s traceback process, the investigators would use the shipping records into the DC to determine where and when the tomatoes from each vendor were received in the DC, and the outgoing DC shipping records to determine where and when they were shipped to the retail stores. The investigators then match this information with the epidemiologic data to link illness with stores, the DC and ultimately the source of the tomatoes that were received into the DC. It is an investigative process that takes time, but genuinely serves the public by identifying the source of contaminated product and ensuring it is removed from points of sale or consumption.

I’m a greenhouse grower. Can I set up pathogen testing, for example to test the water and the product for pathogens?
The simple answer to this question is that you can never test your way to food safety. Testing is merely a tool, and an imperfect one at that. Without knowing the grower in question, I would first advise that they have a documented food safety program in place to govern their greenhouse operations. This food safety plan needs to be driven by a risk assessment that outlines every operation at the facility and identifies where potential contaminations could take place, e.g. the water quality used for irrigation, potential for contamination entering the facility via the air from surrounding areas, hygiene practices by workers handling the fruit, sanitation of harvest baskets, purity of the potting soil, etc. The absolute best way to avoid an illness associated with their products is to prevent the contamination from ever occurring.
I suspect this greenhouse grower has a food safety program if they are asking about testing, but strongly encourage them to go back through it and see if it is adequate. Many people in our industry mistakenly think a food safety program is the documentation you use to pass food safety audits. In fact, a food safety program is a risk assessment/risk management program, and the documentation is simply the verification that you are indeed managing the risks to the best of your ability.
Microbial testing can have a beneficial role in validating the effectiveness of risk management procedures. Water testing is one of these areas. The greenhouse operator should test the incoming water for the operation on at least a monthly basis. Before testing, they should confirm their water source; i.e. what is the source (e.g. municipal, well, canal, etc.), and what risks does it pose? Obviously a municipal water source or a deep well poses much lower risks than an open water source like a canal or river. In any event, the operator needs to put management procedures in place to ensure the water does not become contaminated.
Once that is done, microbial testing is a way to monitor the effectiveness of the risk management procedures. Often, testing for specific pathogens is not necessary, but perhaps a simple test for generic E. coli as an indicator for fecal contamination would suffice and be more cost-effective.
In the end, there is no perfect organism to test for, and the greenhouse operator will have to make his or her own decision on whether to test for pathogens directly or not. If the operator feels through a risk assessment that there is a potential for Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 contamination because the water source is in proximity to a potential source, e.g. dairy, poultry, bird nesting areas, etc., then pathogen testing may be part of managing that risk and would be advisable. Microbial testing can also be an excellent way to test for the efficacy of equipment sanitation methods. Simple swab testing after cleaning and sanitation of equipment, harvest totes or any food contact surfaces is a great way to verify that the cleaning chemicals and methods used for sanitation are adequate. Often a quick test for total plate count (referred to in shorthand as TPC) is sufficient for this purpose. There are also several “do it yourself”, ATP-based (Adenosine triphosphate) test kits available that have the advantage of lower cost and time savings that would fit this bill.
Product testing has become a hot topic in our industry. A greenhouse operator can certainly develop a testing program for finished tomatoes, but it is important to understand what the testing data means and more important to know what it does not mean.
First it is important to find a certified laboratory that uses FDA and/or AOAC-approved methodologies for measuring pathogens. It is important that your grower understands the test procedures, handling practices by the laboratory and how the data will be reported and to whom. Once the testing itself is understood, then you move to the more difficult issue of sampling.
This is where perception needs to come to grips with reality. If this greenhouse operator had a large, wide-spread contamination, e.g. the water used for rinsing the harvest totes was contaminated, a sampling of tomatoes post-harvest may indeed detect the contamination and the tomatoes could be destroyed. But absent a catastrophic event, the general feeling in the scientific community is that these contaminations that lead to foodborne illness outbreaks are at low levels and not widely spread, e.g. a single ill or recovering worker that did not wash his/her hands properly after use of a restroom and handled perhaps a few hundred fruit.
So that puts us in a position of trying to understand how many tomatoes we would have to sample and test to be sure that we could find every tomato fruit that was contaminated so we could eliminate them from going to consumers. (See related question.) Your grower cannot test every tomato, as it is too expensive and it results in the destruction of the fruit. So while the idea of product testing for pathogens sounds great, in reality the resources required are better spent in prevention of contamination in the first place.

New I-9 form

The National Council of Agricultural Employers reports a I-9 employment verification form has been released.

From the NCAE and Sharon Hughes:

After many years and much anticipation, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) finally revised the I-9 employment verification form and the Handbook for Employers, instructions for Completing the Form I-9. It is required that all employers complete an I-9 form for all employees within the first three days of employment. The new I-9 reduces the number of documents an employee may present to prove employment eligibility in the United States.

Five List A documents, which prove both identity and employment eligibility, were eliminated and can no longer be accepted by employers: Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560 or N-
570); Certificate of Naturalization (Form N-550 or N-570); Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151); unexpired Reentry Permit (Form I-327); and unexpired Refugee Travel Document (Form I-571). Form I-766, the Employment Authorization Document, was added to List A.

A major change is in the instructions for Section 1 that the employee is required to fill out. The worker is no longer required to provide the Social Security number unless the employer participates in the USCIS Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification Program (E-Verify).

All previous versions of the I-9 form and Handbook for Employers are no longer valid and should not be used. Employers must use the amended Form I-9 dated June 5, 2007 for all individuals hired on or after November 7, 2007. However, USCIS recognizes that employers should be afforded a period of time to transition to the amended Form I-9. The Department of Homeland Security will publish a Notice in the Federal Register announcing that it will not seek penalties against an employer for using a previous version of the Form I-9 during a 30 day transition period that begins on date of publication of the Notice. After the transition period, employers who fail to use Form I-9 (Rev. 06/05/07)N may be subject to all applicable penalties. Employers do not need to complete new forms for existing employees, but must use the new forms for new hires or if an employee is required to re-verify employment eligibility.

The new I-9 form and the revised Handbook for Employers are available online at www.uscis.gov.

Advance notice of proposed rulemaking - Leafy greens

True to an earlier post this week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published advance notice of proposed rulemaking for leafy greens handling regulations. Note that a marketing order must be voted on by growers, where as a marketing agreement does not. Comments must be received by Dec. 3. From the Oct. 4 Federal Register summary:



The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in response to industry interest in the establishment of a marketing program to address the handling of fresh and fresh-cut leafy green vegetables. The program would allow packers, processors, shippers, and marketers (collectively referred to as handlers) to maintain the quality of their products by reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during the production and handling of leafy greens. Authorities and regulations under the program would not supplant those of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring that foods are safe, wholesome, and sanitary. Comments are being sought from the public, particularly from growers, handlers, buyers, and sellers of leafy green commodities, regarding whether to issue such regulations under an AMS marketing program and if so, the possible substance and implementation of the program.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This advance notice of proposed rulemaking invites comments on a potential regulatory program intended to maintain the quality of leafy green commodities by reducing the risk of pathogenic contamination during their production and handling.


AMS is considering implementation of a marketing agreement (agreement) in response to heightened public and industry concern about the safe production and handling of leafy greens. Under the program being considered, handlers could voluntarily enter into the agreement, but signatories would then be required to comply with the agreement's regulations, which would specify Best Practices for minimizing the risk of pathogenic contamination of leafy greens. The Best Practices could include commodity-specific production and handling guidelines that would be developed in cooperation with the industry and based upon FDA's voluntary Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards in Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables, and other FDA-issued guidance

The agreement could include a compliance certification and verification program. For example, handlers could be required to certify that the leafy green products they handle are produced in accordance with the specified guidelines. Handlers would further certify that the shipping, processing, and packing of their leafy green products meet the agreement's specifications. Signatory handlers that meet the agreement's requirements may be authorized to affix an official certification mark to their leafy green products. Use of the mark would certify that the products bearing the mark have been grown, harvested, packed, shipped, processed, and/or handled in accordance with the agreement's regulations. Verification audits would be conducted by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection Program to ensure that handlers have complied with the prescribed requirements. Violation of the requirements could disqualify a non-compliant handler from using the mark for a certain period of time.

In addition to handling regulations, the agreement could include consumer education, production research, generic promotion, or other programs, depending upon the industry's needs and goals.

The informational impact of this action would also be considered under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Any action undertaken as a result of this advance notice would be reviewed by USDA under Executive Orders 12866 and 12988. AMS is considering establishment of a marketing agreement rather than a marketing order (order), which is another regulatory program structure available through AMS.

Below is a brief comparison of these two regulatory instruments, which is intended to allow interested persons a way to distinguish between an agreement and an order so they may better be able to provide comments to USDA.Marketing Orders and Agreements The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act,'' authorizes the implementation of Federal marketing orders and agreements designed to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions for the regulated commodities. Orders and agreements are implemented by AMS following public notice and hearing at the request of industries that demonstrate interest in regulating the handling of commodities produced within specified geographic areas.


Orders may include the authority to regulate the grade, size, quality, packaging, inspection, and/or volume handled of certain agricultural commodities. Orders may also provide for production and marketing research, market development, and promotional activities. Once established, compliance with order regulations is mandatory for all handlers of the affected commodity within the production area. Orders must be approved by growers in referenda prior to implementation.

In comparison, agreements may be entered into by growers, handlers, processors, or others engaged in the handling of any agricultural commodity or its product. Signatories voluntarily agree to participate in the programs and comply with the regulations established by the agreements, which may include--but are not limited to--the types authorized for orders. Violation of order regulations may result in the assessment of civil penalties. The violation of orders and agreements may result in enforcement actions filed in the United States District courts. Violation of agreements could also result in suspension of program privileges, such as use of the program's certification mark. Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, AMS is also authorized to investigate and prosecute alleged violations concerning misbranding or mislabeling of commodity containers, which would include misuse of a certification mark developed under the agreement.

The FDA is responsible for determining whether a regulated product is causing an illness and may recall products or take other actions to halt the spread of that illness.

The Federal or Federal-State Inspection Programs inspect commodities, audit handler procedures, and/or review handler records to verify compliance with mandatory regulations under marketing orders and agreements.

Background In mid-September 2006, the FDA issued the first public alerts \1\ of a multi-state Escherichia coli (E. coli) outbreak linked to fresh spinach grown in California's Salinas Valley. The resulting recall was the largest ever for leafy green products. The produce industry responded quickly to the recall in an effort to rebuild consumer confidence and minimize the risk of future outbreaks.

Investigations by the FDA and the California Department of Health Services, in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, concluded that the E. coli contamination might have been attributed to environmental factors in the production area. In response, members of the California industry initiated the establishment of a State marketing agreement for handlers of leafy greens, which became effective February 10, 2007. Signatories to the State agreement certify that the production, handling, shipment, and sale of leafy green products they handle are compliant with commodity-specific food safety guidelines adopted as Best Practices under the agreement. The Best Practices and its guidelines are designed[[Page 56680]]to minimize the risk of pathogenic contamination. Compliance with the Best Practices is verified by agricultural inspection agencies under contract with the administrative Board established under the agreement.

Although AMS has not received an official proposal, members of the leafy greens industry have expressed interest in the establishment of similar standards through a Federal marketing program. Industry discussions have focused on the need for a program with national scope. In response, AMS is considering the development of a marketing agreement as previously described in this document.

AMS believes that an agreement, rather than an order, is more likely to meet the needs of the produce industry across the fifty States and the District of Columbia. Agreements offer greater flexibility in designing regulatory programs since the programs authorized for agreements are not limited to those specified for orders under the Act. Also, handlers voluntarily enter into agreements, giving individuals the opportunity to determine whether they want to participate, which may be more responsive to the needs of a nationwide industry. As part of its review, AMS is seeking public comments and proposals regarding establishment of a nationwide agreement for the handling of leafy green products. If further development is warranted by response to this request, AMS would publish a notice of hearing on a proposed marketing agreement in the Federal Register in accordance with the provisions of sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).

Public hearings regarding the proposed agreement would be held throughout the country, and handler sign-ups would be conducted if the agreement was approved by USDA.Agency Request for Information AMS is soliciting the views of growers, handlers, buyers, sellers, consumers, and other interested persons on a possible marketing agreement to regulate the handling of leafy green commodities. Additionally,

AMS is interested in any information from industry organizations that could assist with the development of leafy green produce industry profiles. The agency will use information, comments, and proposals received to evaluate whether development of such an agreement for the fifty States and the District of Columbia should be pursued.

In particular, AMS invites responses to the following questions:
(1) Would the handling of leafy greens be better addressed though regulations under a voluntary marketing agreement signed by handlers, or under a mandatory marketing order regulating handlers and approved by a producer referendum?
(2) Would such a program be better implemented on a national or a regional basis?
(3) How should the United States be subdivided into smaller regions for the purposes of committee representation and program administration?
(4) How should committee membership be allocated to adequately represent the interests of industry throughout all regions of the United States?
(5) What process should the committee follow to recommend regulations appropriate to the various regions? For example, would regulations for handling leafy greens on the east coast differ from those on the west coast, and if so, how should the administrative committee address the differences while developing recommendations for regulations?
(6) What specific problems or issues should be addressed by such a marketing program?
(7) Would Best Practices based upon FDA guidelines be the best criteria for regulation of leafy green handling, or are there other criteria available that might better meet the industry's needs?
(8) Which specific leafy green commodities should be included under the program's handling regulations?
(9) What are potential obstacles to the implementation of such a marketing program? For example, would distance make it impractical for the committee to meet frequently? Might regional subcommittees be appointed to meet more frequently and consider local matters for presentation at annual national committee meetings?
(10) What are the potential costs associated with the implementation of such a program, including changes to current production and handling procedures, assessments, and audits? (11) How would a marketing program complement, duplicate, or conflict with any other existing programs, such as state food safety regulations? and
(12) Are there other issues and/or suggestions about such a marketing program? All views are solicited so that every aspect of this potential regulation may be studied prior to formulating a proposed rule, if warranted, by AMS. This request for public comment does not constitute notification that the agreement described in this document is or will be proposed or adopted. A 60-day comment period is provided to allow sufficient time for interested parties to comment on a possible leafy green marketing program. All timely written comments received will be considered before any subsequent rulemaking action is undertaken.

Verifying our way to food insecurity

One of the Bush Administration initiatives that is drawing concern from industry leaders is described this way by the White House:

The Administration Will Commence a Rulemaking Process To Require All Federal Contractors And Vendors To Use E-Verify, The Federal Electronic Employment Verification System, To Ensure That Their Employees Are Authorized To Work In The United States. The Federal government ought to lead by example. As there are more than 200,000 companies doing Federal business, this will significantly expand use of E-Verify, and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain jobs through fraud.

TK: This means that every produce grower/shipper that sells to the USDA for fruit and vegetable programs (see fiscal year 2006 vendor list) will have to have E-Verify in place. What are the implications for vendors who sell fruits and vegetables to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service? Sharon Hughes of the National Council of Agricultural Employers said this provision could have grave consequences, as those companies will apparently be forced to terminate workers with fraudulent documents or else lose government business.

White House announcement on immigration reform

Working from home today, but a developing story is White House initiative on immigration reform and industry reaction to it.

From the White House.
BORDER SECURITY
1. The Administration Will Continue To Strengthen Security At The Border With Additional Personnel And Infrastructure. We are committed to implementing the following border security measures by December 31, 2008:
18,300 Border Patrol agents
370 miles of fencing
300 miles of vehicle barriers
105 camera and radar towers
Three additional UAVs
We will also work to ensure that 1,700 more Border Patrol Agents and an additional UAV are added in 2009.
2. The Administration Will Maintain The Policy Of "Catch And Return" For Illegal Aliens Apprehended At The Border. For years, limited detention space forced the release of many illegal border crossers from nations other than Mexico with nothing more than a Notice to Appear for a hearing before an immigration judge. Many aliens ignored these notices and instead blended into U.S. society. The Administration has ended this practice and instituted a policy of "catch and return," ensuring that all removable aliens caught trying to cross the border illegally are held until they can be removed.
The Administration Will Further Increase Funding For Detention Beds So There Are Places To Detain 31,500 Illegal Aliens Until They Can Be Returned.
The Administration Will Also Press Recalcitrant Countries To Work With The United States To Repatriate Citizens Who Are In The United States Illegally.
3. The Departments Of State And Homeland Security Will Strengthen Legal Efforts To Keep International Gang Members Out Of The United States. Gangs are at the root of many U.S. crime problems today, and many of the most dangerous gangs draw significant membership from abroad. The Federal government already denies visas to known members of certain gangs from China, the former Soviet Union, and El Salvador. Today, the President is directing the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand this list of dangerous organized gangs from other nations and to ensure that members of those gangs are barred from entry into the United States.
4. The Administration Will Expand Exit Requirements So Persons Who Overstay Limited-Duration Visits To The United States Can Be Identified.
By The End Of 2008, The US-VISIT Exit Requirement Will Be Underway At All U.S. Airports And Seaports. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to explore effective and cost-efficient means of establishing biometric exit requirements at land border crossings.
The Administration Will Establish A New Land-Border Exit System For Guest Workers, Starting On A Pilot Basis. This will help ensure that temporary workers in the country now follow the mandate to leave when their work authorization expires.
5. The Administration Will Require All Travelers To Our Ports Of Entry To Use Passports Or Other Similar Secure Documents. Since January 2007, air travelers have been required to carry a passport for entry into the United States. Because of passport processing backlogs, a temporary accommodation has been made for U.S. citizens traveling in the Western Hemisphere, which will be phased out. Starting January 31, 2008, DHS will phase in a requirement for passports or other secure documents for sea and land ports of entry.
6. Beginning This Fall, The Secretary Of Homeland Security Will Deliver Regular "State Of The Border" Reports. These reports will keep the American people informed of the Federal Government's progress in securing the border and hold the Administration accountable for continuing improvement.

INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT
7. The Administration Is Training Hundreds Of State And Local Law Enforcement Officers To Address Illegal Immigration In Their Communities. The Administration is maintaining the 287(g) program and expanding other measures that help State and local law officials. These measures include a broad array of enforcement tools, such as formal task forces, greater use of the ICE Law Enforcement Support Center, delegated border search and seizure authority under Title 19, and enhanced partnerships to address location-specific threats, such as gangs.
8. By This Fall, U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement Teams Devoted To Removing Fugitive Aliens Will Have Been Quintupled In Less Than Three Years. There were 15 seven-member Fugitive Operations Teams in 2005. As of this week there are 68; there will be 75 by the end of September.
9. The Justice Department Will Initiate Regulatory Action To Close The "Voluntary Departure" Loophole Manipulated By Many Illegal Immigrants. Illegal immigrants who settle their cases by agreeing to voluntarily depart sometimes then gain extra time inside the United States by filing a procedural motion to reopen the case. New regulations will clarify that filing such a motion will terminate the voluntary departure status and make the alien subject to the order of removal. They will also set a presumptive $3,000 civil penalty for failing to comply with a voluntary departure agreement.
WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT
10. Today, The Department Of Homeland Security Issued A "No-Match" Regulation That Will Help Employers Ensure Their Workers Are Legal And Help The Government Identify And Crack Down On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Workers. In cases in which an employer has a significant number of employees with inaccurate personal identity information, the Social Security Administration will send the employer a "No-Match" letter. The regulation clarifies that employers may be held liable if they ignore the "No Match" problems by failing to take specified steps within 90 days of receiving the letter.
11. In The Coming Months, The Administration Will Publish A Regulation That Will Reduce The Number Of Documents That Employers Must Accept To Confirm The Identity And Work Eligibility Of Their Employees. Presently, no fewer than 29 categories of documents can be used to establish identity and work eligibility. Employers have little capacity to verify the authenticity of these documents, and the sheer quantity of accepted documents is an invitation to fraud. This regulation will reduce unlawful employment by weeding out insecure documents now used often for identity fraud.
12. As A Civil Counterpart To The Administration's Strategy Of Using Criminal Investigations To Deter Illegal Employment, The Department Of Homeland Security Will Raise The Civil Fines Imposed On Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Immigrants By Approximately 25 Percent. Efforts to secure the border will fail unless the "magnet" that attracts illegals is turned off. Unfortunately, the fines for relying on illegal workers are so modest that some companies treat them as little more than a cost of doing business. DHS will use existing authority to update civil fines for inflation in order to boost fines by about 25 percent, as much as is allowed under current law.
13. The Administration Will Continue To Expand Criminal Investigations Against Employers Who Knowingly Hire Large Numbers Of Illegal Aliens. Arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for criminal violations have increased from 24 in FY 1999 to a record 716 in FY 2006. There have been 742 criminal arrests since the beginning of FY 2007 (through July 31), and there is anecdotal evidence that companies are taking notice and adjusting their business practices to follow the law.
14. The Administration Will Commence a Rulemaking Process To Require All Federal Contractors And Vendors To Use E-Verify, The Federal Electronic Employment Verification System, To Ensure That Their Employees Are Authorized To Work In The United States. The Federal government ought to lead by example. As there are more than 200,000 companies doing Federal business, this will significantly expand use of E-Verify, and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to obtain jobs through fraud.
15. The Administration Will Help States Make Greater Use Of E-Verify. Some States already mandate the use of E-Verify by some or all of their hiring agencies, and other States are considering similar requirements. The Administration will assist such efforts through outreach and offers of technical assistance.
16. The Administration Will Bolster E-Verify By Expanding The Data Sources It Can Check. This will make it easier to catch individuals who commit identity theft. New sources of data will include cross-checks of visa and passport information.
17. The Administration Will Seek Voluntary State Partners Willing To Share Their Department Of Motor Vehicles Photos And Records With E-Verify. Agreements to allow E-Verify access to the repository of photographs in state DMV databases will help prevent illegal immigrants from using fraudulent driver’s licenses to obtain employment. Such agreements will also lay the groundwork for further expansion of the electronic employment eligibility verification system.


Here is coverage from the LA Times. From the Times:
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to announce a broad new initiative today to sharpen immigration enforcement, including measures to raise fines for employers who hire illegal workers, require federal contractors to use an employment verification system and add thousands more agents at the southern border. Other provisions will restrict the types of documents employees can use to prove their legal status and speed up background checks for legal immigrants. Administration officials also intend to streamline a cumbersome agriculture guest worker program. The 25 measures -- some new and some of which expand upon current policies -- come in addition to the expected announcement today of a plan to crack down on illegal immigrants by forcing employers to fire workers with discrepancies in their Social Security information. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has signaled for weeks that the administration would take independent action to deal with illegal immigration after the Senate failed to pass broad immigration reform in June. "We are currently looking at all of the tools we have, without congressional action," he told the Associated Press this week. "We're going to see where we can sharpen some of those tools up. We're going to throw every enforcement tool we have into this issue of trying to address our immigration problem."Business groups expressed dismay at the proposals and suggested they could hurt the economy, particularly in industries like agriculture and construction, which are heavily dependent on immigrant labor.


From the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform

AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM
For Immediate Release:
August 10, 2007
AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYERS, WORKER ADVOCATES AGREE:
WE NEED REAL REFORM, NOT BAND-AIDS O SECURE AMERICA’S FOOD SUPPLY
Joint statement by ACIR and the UFW.
Concerns over immigration and undocumented employees cannot be fixed ith the types of band-aid solutions Homeland Security is offering. roposing new regulations, which neither address the real issues nor take effect until months after harvest time, is not realistic or even practical. Agricultural employers are desperate for a legal workforce for the current harvest season. Farm workers cannot suffer another year living in the shadows of our society. “A real solution, legislation which already has strong bipartisan support, such as AgJOBS, is what farm workers and agricultural employers need to ensure America has a safe food supply grown in the United States, and the agricultural industry has a legal, stable and valued workforce.”

Monday headline roundup 6/25

Food safety worries grow By Shelley Shelton , Arizona Daily Star
Gist: Safey of imported food, COOL
Lede:
For those who've been alarmed by recent scares involving tainted imported products, there's bad news and … moderately comforting news.
Sources: Consumer Federation of America; Lee Frankel of Fresh Produce Association of the Americas; Arizona Dept. of Health Services

His latest challenge; keeping food supply safe Q and A with FDA's David Acheson
Produce related quotes:
Q. Give an example of how a prevention focus changes FDA actions.
A How do you prevent E. coli 0157:H7 from getting on spinach? That's the bug that caused the spinach outbreak. You need to do the basic science to understand how that contamination can occur. How do you prevent it? Do you test the water on a regular basis? Do you push cattle further away? Do you need better washing strategies in the processing plants? You then educate industry on how to do that. And then, potentially down the road, verify they are doing it.
Q Is that happening now?
A No, it's not. But it's where we need to go.

Q Critics make the case for a single food safety agency with recall authority and a mandate to standardize inspections.
A Simply creating a single food safety agency, moving groups of federal employees around under a different organizational structure, frankly, I think is more likely to create a bigger hole in food safety, certainly for sure in the short term. I worry about that.

Q Is mandatory recall authority among new powers the FDA seeks?
A It's on the table as an authority that could be looked at.
Q Which other new powers would be helpful?
A [We're] looking at what the strategic plan, overall, would shape up like. What could be achieved with current authorities? What could be achieved with what you might call a tweak on current authorities? And what needs new authorities? There needs to be overall buy-in to the strategic approach . . . I don't want to jeopardize anything or preempt anything by jumping too far in front.


Tesco trains staff in generational talk This describes Tesco's training of older workers in the U.K. on the strange talk of the younger generations. Some examples:

Bad: Good (but this can also mean bad. When in doubt, just nod).
How’s it hanging?: How are you today?
Laters: Cheerio, goodbye.
Minging: Ugly, unattractive.
Phat: Wicked (in the good sense), cool.
Slammin’: Pleasing to the eye.
Talk to the hand: I’m not listening.
Wack: Weak, boring