Farm flex and other top headlines for Jan. 28

Heard from one lobbyist that Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., is trying to revive the farm flex legislation that would give program crop growers more opportunity to grow fruits and vegetables. So soon after the farm bill?

Here are other headlines snatched from the Web:

Two food managers plead guilty in federal tomato industry investigation of SK Foods From the Monterey County Herald

Watson, a former senior purchasing manager for Kraft Foods Inc., pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in connection with a kickback scheme that involved accepting $158,000 in bribes from a former SK Foods broker.

Manuel pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and a false tax return in connection with embezzling $975,000 from Morning Star Packing Co. before going to work for SK Foods in 2005. Federal officials said he was terminated from SK Foods on Monday.

The company has said it is cooperating in the investigation, which came to light in April 2008 when its Ryan Ranch headquarters was searched by investigators.

How sweet to be a maroon carrot

"BetaSweet" carrots have more beta-carotene, texture and crunch than a regular carrot. So what's the difference between a regular carrot and a BetaSweet? BetaSweet carrots have a Texas A&M maroon tint, as opposed to the traditional orange color. The purplish color comes from the antioxidant anthocyanin, which is found in blueberries and could be effective in preventing cancer cells.

UK chain bans pesticides that could harm bees

The use of pesticides have been blamed for the collapse and yesterday the Co-operative announced it was banning any foods grown using the chemicals from their own range of fresh products.

The retailer also said it was donating £150,000 for research into why honeybee numbers are falling, and would be trialling a wild flower mix to be planted alongside crops on its farms to support bees.

Members of the Co-operative will be invited to special screenings of a film on bee declines and have access to 20,000 packets of free wild flower seed mix, while bee boxes will be available at a discount.

Co-operative Farms – the UK's biggest farmer with 25,000 hectares – will also invite beekeepers to establish hives on its land as part of a 10-point "Plan Bee."

Stimulus money with E-verify would hurt, not help American workers

Peanut butter manufacturer found salmonella, shipped anyway You're kidding me...this is bad

Recession hits college campuses and endowments Off 25% in 2008

Farm bill side by side and other ERS notes

Luis of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group first tagged this new release from the ERS, a side by side comparison of the farm bill of 2008 and the farm bill of 2002. Find the ERS link here.

Another ERS study that I don't think I've linked to before is found here. The title of the report is called "Phytosanitary regulation of the entry of fresh fruits and vegetables into the United States." Lots of data here about who can export what to the U.S. From the overview:

Increased trade in fresh fruits and vegetables provides U.S. consumers with a variety of benefits including the possibility of improved nutrition by making these products available year-round. Imports of these products are regulated by USDA's Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS) to reduce the risk of inadvertent entry of pests and diseases that could harm agriculture, public health, navigation, irrigation, natural resources, or the environment.

This data product identifies which countries, under APHIS phytosanitary rules, are eligible to export to the United States the fresh fruits and vegetables that are most important in the American diet. Current data represent country eligiblility as of June 2008. Previous (2007) data represent eligibility as of February 2007. Data on the absolute and relative importance of these countries in international production and trade, individually and in aggregate, are also included. This data product supports the objectives of the Program for Research on the Economics of Invasive Species (PREISM) under which ERS funds and conducts research to improve the economic basis of decisionmaking concerning invasive species issues, policies, and programs.

The Packer Extra - Aug. 25

Here are the items from The Packer Extra email newsletter this morning....




FDA finds salmonella at eight U.S. firms
The Food and Drug Administration has completed its first round of sampling produce items found in fresh salsa, and at least eight domestic companies had products that tested positive for salmonella. Go here for the story:
http://www.elabs3.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=ikv,xxf0,4hgn,a0hg,2afx,df8d,kcoe


Industries dispute exclusion of nuts, dried fruit
While representatives of the nut and dried fruit industries are upset that they were excluded from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's fresh fruit and vegetable snack program in the 2008 farm bill, fresh produce industry advocates say those commodities were never intended to be part of the $1 billion initiative. Go here for the story:
http://www.elabs3.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=ikv,xxf0,4hgn,j3za,kh5n,df8d,kcoe



Six L's introduces heirloom-style tomato
A new heirloom-style tomato is making its way to retail shelves. The Vintage Ripe tomato, grown and shipped by Six L's Packing Co. Inc., Immokalee, Fla., hit stores in mid-August in bulk and in four-pack clamshells. Go here for the story:
http://www.elabs3.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=ikv,xxf0,4hgn,9pdf,6gz3,df8d,kcoe


Pineapple yields drop, prices soar
A phenomenon known as natural flowering has put a dent in late summer supplies of pineapples. Prices are up as much as 50% compared to f.o.b.s a year ago, and they could go higher, some importers said. Go here for the story:

http://www.elabs3.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=ikv,xxf0,4hgn,j5wg,bu25,df8d,kcoe



Giant, Stop n' Shop launch changes chainwide
On Aug. 22, customers started seeing traces of the new look for Giant and Stop & Shop supermarkets. A new logo, employee uniforms, redesigned store platforms and new features such as enhanced fresh prepared foods and a "family-friendly" checkout lane are part of changes scheduled to take place . . . Go here for the story:
http://www.elabs3.com/ct.html?rtr=on&s=ikv,xxf0,4hgn,l3oc,18rm,df8d,kcoe

Poisoned peppers?

Doug Powell links to a blog post by food safety lawyer Bill Marler that's worth noting. Find it here.

Marler writes on his blog:

What if the great 2008 Tomato, right Pepper, Salmonella Outbreak actually happened this way?

At 10:00 PM last May 30th, on the same day New Mexico asked for help from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with a growing outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul, a foreign Network begin airing a video taken inside a fresh produce distribution center showing workers treating peppers with an unknown liquid. There is a claim that this is a terrorist act.

In the next 15 minutes, every network news operation is playing the video. The broadcast networks break into regular programming to air it, and the cable news stations go nonstop with the video while talking heads dissect it.

Coming on a Friday afternoon on the East Coast, the food terrorism story catches the mainstream Media completely off guard. Other than to say the video is being analyzed by CIA experts, and is presumed to be authentic, there isn’t much coming out of the government.

Far-fetched? Don’t count on it. I have been saying for years that a foodborne illness outbreak will look just like the terrorist act described above, but without the video on FOX News. Far-fetched?

Tell that to the 751 people in Wasco County, Oregon—including 45 who required hospital stays---who in 1984 ate at any one of ten salad bars in town and were poisoned with Salmonella by followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The goal was to make people who were not followers of the cult too sick to vote in county elections.

Tell that to Chile, where in 1989, a shipment of grapes bound for the United States was found laced with cyanide, bringing trade suspension that cost the South American country $200 million. It was very much like a 1970s plot by Palestinian terrorists to inject Israel’s Jaffa oranges with mercury.

Tell that to the 111 people, including 40 children, sickened in May 2003 when a Michigan supermarket employee intentionally tainted 200 pounds of ground beef with an insecticide containing nicotine.

Tell that to Mr. Litvenenko, the Russian spy poisoned in the UK with polonium-laced food.

Tell that to Stanford University researchers who modeled a nightmare scenario where a mere 4 grams of botulinum toxin dropped into a milk production facility could cause serious illness and even death to 400,000 people in the United States.

The reason I bring this up is not only because we are about to mark the seventh anniversary of 9/11, but because I wonder if food terrorism really had been the cause of this year’s Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak, would it have made any difference in our government’s ability to figure out there was an outbreak, to figure out the cause, and to stop it before it sickened so many.

Would the fact of terrorists operating from inside a fresh produce distribution center somewhere inside the United States or Mexico brought more or effective resources to the search for the source of the Salmonella Saintpaul? If credit-taking terrorists were putting poison on our peppers, could we be certain Uncle Sam’s response would have been more robust or effective then if it was just a “regular” food illness outbreak?

Later, Marler writes:

If credit-taking terrorists were putting poison on our peppers, could we be certain that Uncle Sam’s response would be more robust, more effective than if it was just a “regular” food illness outbreak?

Absolutely not! The CDC publicly admits that it manages to count and track only one of every forty foodborne illness victims, and that its inspectors miss key evidence as outbreaks begin. The FDA is on record as referring to themselves as overburdened, underfunded, understaffed, and in possession of no real power to make a difference during recalls, because even Class 1 recalls are “voluntary.” If you are a food manufacturer, packer, or distributor, you are more likely to be hit by lightening than be inspected by the FDA. You are perfectly free to continue to sell and distribute your poisoned product, whether it has been poisoned accidentally or intentionally.

The reality is that the Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak is a brutal object lesson in the significant gaps in our ability to track and protect our food supply. We are ill prepared for a crisis, regardless of who poisons us.

Somewhere between the farm and your table, our Uncle Sam got lost.

TK: I personally think the government's response would more more robust in the event of a food terror attack. In fact, the first thing I would do would be to put Jack Bauer on the case ASAP. 24 hours to solve the case, not 24 weeks. Seriously, taking a serious flight of fancy here, wouldn't it be great if Jack Bauer ran traceback investigations for the FDA? Turn off the cameras in the interrogation room, Chloe - Jack has some work to do.

Jack, where are are you?

No snacks for you - dried fruits and nuts

This coverage from the McClatchy Newspapers speaks of the discontent by some dried fruit and nut marketers about not being included in fresh fruit and vegetable snack program in the farm bill. From the piece:

The bill includes record spending for the fruit, vegetable and nut industries that banded together as a specialty crop alliance. Notably, the new farm bill expanded an existing fresh fruit and vegetable snack program previously limited to 14 states.

Starting Oct. 1, selected schools in all 50 states will be able to partake in the fresh fruit and vegetable snack program. The new farm bill adds some $500 million for the purchases over the next five years.

"There was a general assumption that nuts and dried fruits would be included in this program; they are considered to be healthy," noted Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno.

But after Congress finished the farm bill, apparently, California lawmakers realized the bill and an accompanying 423-page report had been adjusted. In part, this so-called report language limited the reach of the fresh snack program.

"It is not the intent of the (bill's) managers to allow this program to provide other products, such as nuts, either on their own or co-mingled with other foods, such as in a trail mix," the bill report states.

Haley, whose clients include the nut-growing cooperative Diamond of California, said the provision was included "when no one was looking." Senate staffers are thought to have been primarily responsible, California Farm Bureau Federation national affairs director Jack King indicated Monday.

"It caught us all by surprise," King said.

Separately, the bill language itself was tweaked to omit dried fruits from the fresh fruit and vegetable snack provision. Until now, dried fruits like raisins, prunes and figs have been acceptable snack components. But under a strict interpretation of the bill, omission of a reference to dried fruits means they can no longer be purchased for the snack program.

Costa, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said last week he hadn't heard anything about it, and Haley said other California lawmakers were likewise left in the dark. The Californians could fight back in September, when Congress returns; a spokeswoman for the Senate agriculture panel could not be reached Monday.

TK: It is not as if the dried fruit people came up empty in the farm bill. From the farm bill managers' statement, concerning the Department of Defense Fresh program:


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 thereafter. Items purchased may be in frozen, canned, dried, or fresh form.


TK: There should be no great surprise now among lawmakers and lobbyists about the intent of the farm bill relative to expansion of the fruit fruit and vegetable program. From the managers statement back in mid-May:


(53) Expansion of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

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.

COOL: Co-mingle among yourselves

Retailers will be allowed to co-mingle produce of various origin in bulk displays, so long as the signage accounts for all possible origins. I'm not sure if consumers will find this approach very appealing, and retailers may take this approach at their own risk, IMHO.

From the interim final rule:


With regard to markings, in addition to the change made by the 2008 Farm Bill with respect to State, region, and locality labels, which is further discussed below, the Agency has made
several changes to provide for increased flexibility in labeling. In general, these changes mirror the changes that were made to the marking provisions contained in the interim final rule for fish and shellfish as a result of comments received on the proposed rule. Many commenters requested the use of check boxes to convey origin information. Other commenters requested that bulk commodities should be allowed to be commingled in bins as long as the signage indicates the countries of origin of the contents of the bin. Numerous other commenters recommended that State and regional designations should be accepted in lieu of country of origin. For a more complete discussion of the relevant comments, readers are invited to review the interim final rule for fish and shellfish. Accordingly, under this interim final rule, the declaration of the country of origin of a product may be in the form of a check box provided it is in conformance with other Federal labeling laws. Also, under this final rule, a bulk container
(e.g., display case, shipper, bin, carton, and barrel), used at the retail level to present product to consumers, may contain a covered commodity from more than one country of origin rovided all possible origins are listed. Under the proposed rule, the use of check boxes was not expressly allowed and covered commodities from more than one origin that were offered for sale in a bulk container were required to be individually labeled. Under the proposed rule, State or regional label designations were not permitted in lieu of country of origin. However, the 2008 Farm Bill, and thus this interim final rule, expressly authorize the use of State, regional, or locality label designations in lieu of country of origin for perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts.

COOL FAQ: When will the requirements of this regulation take effect?

One of the big questions about the COOL regulation is the "phase-in" period. This excerpt from the USDA's interim final rule - issued last night - addresses that concern:


When will the requirements of this regulation take effect?
The effective date of this regulation is September 30, 2008, because the statute provides for a September 30, 2008, implementation date. However, because some of the affected
industries (goat, chicken, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts) did not have prior opportunities to comment on this rulemaking 10 and because the 2008 Farm Bill made changes to several of the labeling provisions for meat covered commodities, it is
reasonable to allow time for covered commodities that are already in the chain of commerce and for which no origin information is known or been provided to clear the system.

Therefore, the requirements of this rule do not apply to covered commodities produced or packaged before September 30, 2008. In addition, during the six month period following the effective date of the regulation, AMS will conduct an industry education and outreach program concerning the provisions and requirements of this rule.

AMS has determined that this allocation of enforcement resources will ensure that the rule is effectively
and rationally implemented. This AMS plan of outreach and education should significantly aid the industry in achieving compliance with the requirements of this rule. How will the requirements of this regulation be enforced? USDA has entered into agreements with States having existing enforcement infrastructure to assist in compliance reviews for fish and shellfish covered commodities. These agreements will be expanded to encompass all covered
commodities. USDA determines the number of reviews to be conducted and has developed comprehensive procedures for the compliance reviews. Only USDA is able to initiate enforcement actions against a person found to be in violation of the law.
The COOL statute does not provide for a private right of action. USDA may also conduct investigations of complaints made by any person alleging violations of these regulations when the Secretary determines that reasonable grounds for such investigation exist.

House to CTFC: Stop excessive oil speculation

Oil prices aren't going down, despite the fact that some economists say that supply and conditions don't warrant $130/barrel pricing. The House Agriculture Committee issued this press release yesterday about a new bill designed to curb "excessive speculation" in the energy futures market. From the House Agriculture Committee:


Today, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to utilize all its authority, including emergency powers, to take steps to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets. H.R. 6377, the Energy Markets Emergency Act passed the House overwhelmingly by a bipartisan vote of 402-19. "A growing number of people believe a flood of speculative money into energy futures is driving the record prices in crude oil," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota during floor debate on the bill. "CFTC must take immediate steps to ensure that index and hedge fund money is not the cause for price manipulation and should take any necessary action to curb excessive speculation in the markets. These steps will help restore consumer confidence and reassure the American taxpayer that the futures markets are unctioning properly."

H.R. 6377 directs CFTC to use all its authority, including its emergency powers, immediately to curb the role of excessive speculation in the energy and swaps futures markets and take other corrective actions as necessary to eliminate any market disturbance that prevents energy arkets from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand.

CFTC is the chief regulator of futures and option markets in the United States. It was created as an independent agency in 1974 with the mandate to enforce and administer the Commodity Exchange Act, to ensure market integrity, to protect market users from fraud and abusive trading practices, and to prevent and prosecute manipulation of the price of any commodity in interstate commerce.

Congressional oversight of CFTC is under the jurisdiction of the House Agriculture Committee, chaired by Congressman Peterson. The Farm Bill, enacted into law earlier this month over the President's veto, reauthorizes CFTC through 2013.

In July, the House Agriculture Committee will examine legislative proposals that would affect CFTC's authority over energy futures and swaps markets. Several bills affecting regulation of the energy futures and swaps markets have been introduced and referred to the Committee in the 110th Congress.

"The Committee will thoroughly and carefully examine legislative proposals that would affect regulation of these markets," Peterson said. "Our review will be comprehensive and public so that we may work toward a consensus, bipartisan bill that will strengthen CFTC's ability to identify fraud and manipulation in the markets."

Final note - Farm bill override

The 2008 farm bill is officially in the books, at long last. From the office of Rep. Collin Peterson yesterday:


This afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to override President Bush's second veto of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act with a bipartisan vote of 317-109.

"Today's vote will ensure that all parts of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act are enacted into law," Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said. "Particularly considering the serious concerns about rising food prices and severe flooding affecting crops in the Midwest, this Farm Bill provides a critical safety net for families and farmers."

Last month, Congress approved the conference report for the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (H.R. 2419). When that bill was sent to the White House, one of the bill's 15 titles was inadvertently left out of the official copy of the bill vetoed by the President.
Congress overrode the veto of H.R. 2419, which enacted 14 of the bill's 15 titles into law.

To ensure that all 15 titles are properly enacted, the House passed the Food, Conservation and Energy Act a second time with a new bill number (H.R. 6124). That bill was sent to the White House, and following President Bush's veto, the House voted today to override the veto.

From the office of Sen. Tom Harkin:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement in response to the Senate vote of 80 to 14 to override the veto of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act – the new farm bill – in the Senate. Earlier today, the House of Representatives voted 317 to 109 to override the measure. Harkin chaired the Senate-House conference committee on the new farm bill. He is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

“It has been a long time coming, but today’s veto override in the Senate completes action on the new farm bill, enacting the full bill, including provisions on foreign food assistance and agricultural trade. The White House repeatedly tried to veto this measure, but could not stand in the way of critical farm, food, conservation and energy investments becoming law. Not only did this bill pass both chambers with an overwhelming majority, but with the override votes, we held our majorities. This proves we have a good, strong, bipartisan farm bill. And after all of our hard work, it is a proud result for Congress as this critical legislation becomes law.”

TK: Also note the House Agriculture Committee schedule next week:

AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE SCHEDULE
UPDATED
June 18, 2008

(UPDATED)
Tues., June 24th - 9:00 a.m.
1300 Longworth House Office Building
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry - Public Hearing.
RE: To review advances in animal health within the livestock industry.


(NEW)
Thurs., June 26th - 10:00 a.m.
1300 Longworth House Office Building
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture - Public Hearing.
RE: To review the status of pollinator health including colony collapse disorder.

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.

GMA: Cut the ethanol tariff

The spike in corn prices is keeping the heat on biofuels as the whole supply chain deals with higher food costs. One issue is the tariff on imported ethanol. Here the GMA stakes out a position that the tariff should decline in concert the 45-cent credit to blenders mandated in the new farm bill. From GMA:


(Washington, DC) - The Grocery Manufacturers Association today issued the following statement by Vice President for Federal Affairs Scott Faber in regard to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) and Senator Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) introduction of legislation intended to reduce the tariff on imported ethanol. Co-sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Wayne Allard (R-CO), and Susan Collins (R-ME) the bill would reduce the 54-cent ethanol tariff on imported sugar-based ethanol from Brazil to 45 cents, matching the 45-cent tax credit to blenders as mandated by the new Farm Bill.

“This week in Rome, there was broad agreement that U.S. food-to-fuel mandates and subsidies have greatly contributed to distortions in the world grain market and have led to skyrocketing food prices here and around the globe. We applaud Senators Feinstein, Gregg, Cantwell, Allard and Collins for taking another step in the right direction by proposing the reconsideration of the tariff on imported ethanol. However, the current food crisis will not be solved by incremental change alone; urgent Congressional action is needed to examine the full economic and environmental impacts of these food-to-fuel taxes and subsidies immediately.”

Peterson and Goodlatte: All but one title enacted

From the office of Rep. Collin Peterson:

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Ranking Member Bob Goodlatte of Virginia issued the following statement today:
"Following veto override votes of 316-108 in the House and 82-13 in the Senate, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 has been enacted into law, with the exception of the bill's trade title.
"The trade title was included in the conference report passed by Congress but was inadvertently left out of the official copy of the farm bill that the President vetoed. Today, the House also took action to correct the clerical error that resulted in the unintentional omission of the trade title from the enrolled farm bill and ensure that the entire farm bill is enacted into aw swiftly. Most of the farm bill is now law and the Administration can begin implementing the new programs and policies immediately.
"The Food, Conservation and Energy Act makes historic new investments in food, farm and conservation programs that are priorities for all Americans, which is why a broad, bipartisan coalition voted overwhelmingly to pass this bill.
"While no one got everything they wanted in this Farm Bill, we struck a balance that meets the pressing needs of working American families struggling with high food prices and that supports America's farmers and ranchers as they continue to provide a safe, abundant, homegrown supply of food and fiber while protecting our natural resources and developing new sources of renewable energy."

Farm bill: the curse of the enrolling clerk

We might worry the new Indiana Jones movie may be released to DVD before the farm bill is finished, but the word from Robert Guenther, Kathy Means and others is that final Congressional action is expected after the Memorial Day work period (vacation in layman's terms). So look for the Presidential veto on the complete version of the farm bill - and the overwhelming votes in the House and the Senate to override that veto - sometime the week of June 2.

I talked to Autumn Veazey today. After two years of lobbying fresh produce industry issues with United Fresh, she has accepted a DC position with the lobbying arm of a law firm with roots in Georgia, her home state. She had high words of praise for the "family" at United Fresh and her experience there with Tom Stenzel and Robert Guenther.....

Situation Normal: All Fouled Up

Yes, the House voted to override the President's veto of the farm bill. However, a "snafu" caused the bill to be sent to the President without a 34-page section of the bill, which news accounts say may mean another vote may have to be taken on the legislation by the House and then resent to the President for another veto. From The Chicago Tribune:

Within hours, in a show of bipartisan defiance, the House overwhelmingly overrode his veto of the nearly $300-billion bill, 316 to 108.

But an embarrassing legislative snafu may well nullify the House's veto override and trigger a string of new votes that could reopen the farm bill for consideration.

The mix-up occurred in the House, which along with the Senate overwhelmingly approved a final version of the bill last week. The House, however, sent the White House the final version of the bill minus one 34-page section.

Because the White House did not receive the entire farm bill, House leaders were left wondering whether Bush's veto, and their override vote, was legitimate.

The Associated Press reported late Wednesday that the House may have to vote to reapprove the bill in an expedited manner today, send it back to Bush for a new veto, then hold another override vote.

Conner to discuss today's Presidential veto of the farm bill

From the USDA. I'll capture some audio of Conner's remarks:


Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner will hold a Press Conference at 1:30 p.m. EDT to discuss today's Presidential veto of the farm bill.

Waiting for the inevitable

Ryan McLaughlin, spokesman for the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, reports the group is hearing the official White House veto and possibly a House override will occur on Wednesday.

From the office of Rep. Collin Peterson:


Today, Congress sent H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 to President Bush. The bill passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 318-106 and passed the Senate with a vote of 81-15 last week.

"I hope that President Bush will seriously consider the many positive steps this bill takes to improve nutrition programs that are important to so many Americans, particularly during these difficult economic times; to expand and improve conservation programs that help farmers protect the environment; to continue and improve the safety net for farmers; to support fruit and vegetable producers and to encourage renewable energy production from cellulosic sources," Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said.

"We made every effort to work with Administration officials throughout the Farm Bill process, even when they showed no interest in coming to compromise on these important issues," Chairman Peterson said. "While the President has pledged to veto the bill, I hope that the strong, bipartisan votes in the House and Senate will demonstrate its importance to the American people and lead him to sign it into law."

The current extension of the 2002 Farm Bill expires on Friday, May 23, 2008.

Immigration legislation: A lift from the war supplemental?

A member communication from the United Fresh Produce Association reports on the ongoing effort by Sen. Dianne Feinstein to work AgJobs into legislation this year: From United:

Senate to Take on Emergency Agriculture Immigration Legislation

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Iraq War Supplemental bill which included an amendment sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) that would provide a temporary agriculture labor relief for American agriculture. The amendment which is titled the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act (EARA) is designed to address the perennial shortage of agriculture workers and does not provide a path to citizenship or a green card. It would grant temporary, limited immigration status for experienced farm workers who would be required to continue to work in American agriculture for the next five years.

We expect this amendment to come up on the Senate floor this week, prior to the Memorial Day district work period and we encourage you to contact their Senators to urge them to vote to include the Emergency Agriculture UIRelief Act in the final Iraq War Supplemental spending bill. The produce industry has been working for years to get comprehensive reform of our nation's immigration policies, but that has not happened. As we continue to strive for comprehensive immigration reform and work out acceptable long-term reforms, we must also look for a short term solution to help our industry stay in business.

In the last year alone 13,280 farms in the United States have shut down

U.S. agriculture is becoming increasingly crippled by worker shortages - with some $8 billion in crop losses already sustained and more ahead. This amendment is a clean, simple, temporary measure to solve an emergency in agriculture.

Contact Your Senators Today
Encouraging your lawmakers in Washington to support this legislation shows your commitment to the growth and success of our industry across the nation. Please visit our website to take action on this issue,

To strengthen the produce voice, encourage your colleagues and family to also take action.

Managers' statement: on improving the movement of specialty crops

More important than ever, the cost effective movement of specialty crops is addressed in the farm bill conference report. No mandatory funds, however:

(22) Grant program to improve the movement of specialty crops
The House bill: (1) authorizes the Secretary to make grants to State and local governments, grower cooperatives, and producer and shipper organizations to improve the cost-effective movement of specialty crops, (2) provides that the grant recipient must match the amount of funds received under this program, and (3) authorizes appropriations for necessary sums to carry out the section. (Section 10401) The Senate amendment is the same as the House bill, except Senate language amends title II of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-465; 118 Stat. 3884), and clarifies that non-profit trucking associations and their research entities are eligible to receive grants. (Section 1842)
The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment to allow national, state, or regional organizations of producers, shippers or carriers to be eligible for grants under the program. (Section 10403)

Managers' statement: the organic provisions

From the farm bill conference managers' statement, important wins for the organic industry. However, the farm bill conference doesn't give the organic industry all the mandatory funding it wanted:

The National organic certification cost-share program
The House bill amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to provide $22,000,000 for the national organic certification cost-share program, to be available until expended. It provides that the federal share may not exceed 75 percent of the cost of certification, and the maximum amount a producer may receive is raised from $500 to $750. (Section 10301)
The Senate amendment amends section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) to reauthorize the National Organic Certification Cost-Share program, which provides funds for the Secretary to assist producers and handlers of agricultural products in obtaining certification under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. Payments to producers or handlers are limited to $750, and the federal share of the certification cost will be no more than 75 percent of the total certification cost incurred. The Senate provision adds language to require the Secretary to submit to Congress, reports that describes the expenditures for each state under the program during the previous fiscal year. It also provides $22,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1823)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to delete the federal share requirements as well as the federal and state recordkeeping requirements, and to require the Secretary to submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees a report containing certain program information. (Section 10301)
The Managers encourage the Secretary to keep accurate and current records of requests by and disbursements to States under the program, and require accurate and consistent recordkeeping from each State and entity that receives program payments. The Managers also recognize the importance of distributing cost-share funds to the States in a timely manner, and request that the Secretary distribute such funds at the soonest date practicable following the deadline for submission of funding requests under the program. The Managers are aware that there have been discussions between the Department of Agriculture and the States regarding administrative fees for the program and encourage the Department to review administrative fees to ensure optimal performance in serving the needs of organic producers and handlers.


(18) Organic production and market data
The House bill: (1) amends section 7407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act to add pricing of organic products as new data to be included in the ongoing collection of data on agriculture production and marketing, (2) provides that the data on organics under this section shall be collected to analyze crop loss risk of organic methods of production, (3) provides $3,000,000 in mandatory funds to be available until expended, and (4) includes a free-standing provision that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress a report regarding the progress made in implementing this amendment. (Section 10302)
The Senate amendment amends section 2104 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6503) by granting the Secretary authority to segregate data as it relates to the organic industry by publishing organic production and marketing information and surveys. The language is intended to remedy the lack of price and yield information for organic producers.
Senate expands upon House language by requiring detailed data collection for: organic production and market data initiatives and surveys; expand, collect, and publish organic census data analysis, fund comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically-produced agricultural products; conduct analysis relating to organic production, handling, distribution, retail, and trend studies; study and perform periodic updates on the effects of organic standards on consumer behavior; conduct analysis for organic agriculture using the national crop table. The Senate provision provides $5,000,000 in mandatory funding. (Section 1821)
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to clarify the data collection, analysis, and survey development requirements for the Secretary, as well as to further specify the contents of the report that the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. (Section 10302)
The Managers have provided $5,000,000 in mandatory funding in an effort to jump-start organic data collection efforts at the Department of Agriculture, but recognize that remedying the unmet data collection needs of the organic sector will require further investment, and therefore, have provided an additional authorization of appropriations of $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out the program. The Managers intend that $3.5 million of the funding provided for this section be allocated to the Agricultural Market Service to collect and distribute comprehensive reporting of prices relating to organically produced agricultural products. The Managers also note the critical importance of collecting data related to crop loss risk, and farm-gate prices, in order to determine appropriate products and premiums for crop insurance policies offered to organic producers. The Managers further intend that $1.5 million of the funding provided for this section be used by the Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service to carry out the specified requirements of the initiative that are appropriate to each agency.


(19) Organic conversion, technical and educational assistance
The House bill authorizes $50,000,000 over five years to provide technical assistance and cost-sharing grants to farmers trying to transition to organic farming. (Section 10303) The Senate amendment contains a comparable provision in the conservation title (EQIP).
The Conference substitute deletes the House provision. Language addressing the goal of providing technical assistance to farmers trying to transition to organic farming appears in section 2501 of the conservation title. (20) Exemption of certified organic products from assessments The Senate amendment amends section 501(e) of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401 (e)) to allow farmers who have some or part of their farm certified organic to receive the exemption. Only producers that are USDA organically certified may receive the exemption for that portion of land they produce organically. (Section 1822) The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute deletes the Senate provision.

(21) National organic program
The Senate amendment amends section 2123 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6522) to provide increased authorized incremental funding levels for the National Organic Program to ensure proper compliance and oversight of the National Organic Program. It also authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2011; and $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 1824)
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to provide such additional sums as are necessary to carry out the program. (Section 10303) The National Organic Program (NOP) is the first line of defense in assuring consumers that organic products certified under the program consistently meet the program's standards. The Managers are aware of concerns raised by numerous organic agriculture interests concerning the level of resources devoted to the NOP. While the program's funding level has increased over time, the Managers view the current level of funding as inadequate to permit the NOP to roperly address the world-wide scope of accreditation oversight and certifier training. The Managers strongly encourage the Secretary to prepare NOP budget requests at least equal to the appropriations levels authorized in this Act.

Managers' statement: pest and disease program

From the farm bill conference legislation, the managers' statement on the pest and disease program in the horticultural title:


(15) Pest and disease program
The House bill establishes a new program to conduct early pest detection and surveillance activities in coordination with state departments of agriculture, to prioritize and create action plans to address pest and disease threats to specialty crops, and to create an audit-based certification approach to protect against the spread of plant pests. It provides mandatory funding in the amount of:
(1) $10,000,000 in FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 in FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 in FY 2010;
- 244 -
(4) $55,000,000 in FY 2011; and
(5) $70,000,000 in FY 2012. (Section 10201)
The Senate amendment is the same as the House, except for technical differences
and provides mandatory funds in the amounts of:
(1) $10,000,000 for FY 2008;
(2) $25,000,000 for FY 2009;
(3) $40,000,000 for FY 2010;
(4) $50,000,000 for FY 2011;
(5) $64,000,000 for FY 2012. (Section 12101(f))
The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision with an amendment to: describe the application procedure for the program; prohibit the Department of Agriculture from considering the availability of nonfederal funds in determining whether to enter into a cooperative agreement with a State department of agriculture; direct the
Secretary to consider various risk factors when considering an application for a cooperative agreement; express Congressional disapproval of a cost-sharing rule for animal and health emergency programs and; specify mandatory funding in the amounts of:
(1) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(4) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (Section 10201)
The Managers believe that the nursery plant pest risk management systems established under this section will provide the nursery industry with assistance and flexibility in developing programs that meet its needs to determine and manage plant pest and disease risks
The Managers note that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has taken specific steps to promote new methods of inspection and regulation based on new approaches to nursery pest risk management, sometimes referred to as the “systems approach.” These steps include a technical agreement under the auspices of the North American Plant Protection Organization (Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 24), and the development of the U.S. Nursery Certification Program, a limited test-pilot program developed by Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Plant Protection and Quarantine to promote U.S. nursery shipments to Canada.
The Managers are aware of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s efforts to promote the systems approach for the nursery industry. The development of effective systems of pest risk management and the industry adoption of such systems will be hastened and made more effective through an initiative based on collaboration among key agencies, Departmental personnel, industry organizations, and research institutions. To implement the nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section, U.S. Department of Agriculture policies and regulations must have a sound foundation in research and experience through pilot programs of nursery pant pest risk management systems. In addition, there must be collaboration among industry and state and federal regulators to improve programs of inspection, certification and regulation using such systems. The Managers recognize that systems of pest risk management developed by the nursery industry must satisfy prevailing regulatory requirements if they are to be useful and effective. The Managers encourage the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide guidance and technical assistance to the nursery industry, and to promote and coordinate related programs of research in the implementation of nursery plant pest risk management systems under this section.