Packer Extra - Sept. 15

From The Packer Extra:


COLLEGE PARK, Md. — If the evidence doesn’t fit, food safety officials should acquit tomatoes as a source of the Salmonella Saintpaul pathogen in the now-concluded massive foodborne illness outbreak, one industry leader asked Food and Drug Administration officials here Sept. 11. Go here for the story.

Higher prices alter consumers’ purchases

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Consumers say steep rises in fresh produce prices would cause them to slash consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in favor of other options, according to a recent survey from the Produce Marketing Association. Go here for the story.

Chile’s U.S. exports projected to rebound

Chilean fresh fruit exports to the U.S. dropped by 10% during the 2007-08 season, with a corresponding bump up in shipments to Europe, but many U.S. importers are looking to the future with optimism. Go here for the story.

Sweet Sunshine grape well received in debut

A new challenger to California’s venerable thompson seedless mid-season table grape favorite has emerged. Go here for the story.

Distribution center helps Stater Bros. compete

Stater Bros. Markets, a San Bernardino, Calif.-based chain of 165 stores, opened the doors of a new refrigerated distribution center. Go here for the story.

The big ask

Pic of FDA panel at the Sept. 11 WPPC meeting. Sorry that the pic appears "bootleg" but my G7 Canon decided to stop working yesterday and I borrowed a cell phone (thanks John).



The Washington Public Policy Conference meeting at the FDA facility in College Park, Md. was held in a large theater-style seating auditorium. A panel of FDA experts was on hand, including William Jones, Michelle Smith, Amy Green, Jack Guzewich and Marjorie Davidson. Tom Stenzel and David Gombas of United Fresh also spoke.

The well-attended session (two packed coachline buses) lasted about an hour and a half. It was a cordial meeting, with the first order of business a helpful explanation from Guzewich about the division of duties between local and state health departments, the CDC and the FDA.

He noted that the FDA had more than 50 conference calls with state, local and CDC officials during the outbreak investigation, not to mention communications with the trade and the press.

"It was a very difficult traceback for us....we had people that didn't take a break from June to early August."

He said the FDA officials took no pleasure in the commercial losses of produce traders, but emphasized the agency's top role was to protect consumers.

Guzewich talked of the complexity of tomato traceback, including issues like repacking and co-mingling mentioned.

As far as consumer advisories, FDA panelists said the agency is looking at consumer messaging in terms of what was effective and what wasn't.

There were a number of penetrating questions from WPPC attendees (I'll break down some of these in later blog posts), but the FDA still did not provide for any hope that the tomato link to the salmonella outbreak will be expunged. Even so, Tom Stenzel, in closing the meeting, asked the FDA to consider just that.

Here is what Stenzel said at the conclusion of the meeting, arguing that there appears to be "no logical way" tomatoes were involved in the outbreak:

“I really, really, really ask the agency to join in a reassessment that tomatoes were ever involved in this outbreak.” .

“It’s a rigorous debate, it’s a scientific debate, it’s not wishful thinking on our part,""I think there will be a rigorous scientific debate whether the initial epidemiological evidence was good science, now that we do have hard evidence, microbiological evidence of peppers on a particular farm.

“I urge the FDA in particular, don’t feel compelled by the (Centers for Disease Control)or New Mexico’s initial assessment; I think the agency has a lot riding on this."

On FDA GAPs revisions - the questions

The planned update and revisions to FDA's Good Agricultural Practices guidance bring to mind several questions as the industry prepares to engage again with the agency.

Here are the questions that FDA has asked in their notice of rule making:

FDA Question#1:. Should any future GAPs/GMPs Guide rank or prioritize among potential issues according to relative risk or importance? If yes, please offer suggestions of how that information could be presented in a way that does not detract from the broad scope of the current guidance.


TK: Tom Stenzel of United and Hank Giclas of Western Growers note that the response to this question will be important, for the agency may create interventions or guidance on the basis of industry responses. Whereas the current guidance may be considered "generic" in some respects, the agency may want more specifics:

Hank Giclas said this to me about the FDA update:

"I would anticipate - especially given the fact that FDA is looking at third party accreditation and looking at the breadth and scope of how GAPs are implemented ... and from a leadership perspective, they are calling for authority to issue mandatory GAPs, I would anticipate there will be a move to make the guidelines more specific in many areas."


Tom Stenzel said this about this question:

"Is there a way to rank the relative risk. That's a good question. That (risk question ) targets toward regulatory action or some kind of intervention takes place if there is consensus."



FDA Question #2 : How should the GAPs/GMPs Guide be organized to enhance its usefulness?


FDA Question #3: While the GAPs/GMPs Guide has been generally accepted and widely adopted, we know that there are entities in the fresh produce industry that are not aware of it. What measures can be taken,and by whom, to expand awareness by the fresh produce industry of the GAPs/GMPs guide?

Tom Stenzel says:

"To me that i is just a clear signal that if we can't say 100% of the industry is complying with basic GAPs, does it it call for mandatory regulation?. There are some hooks in their questions. So we will have to be careful and scientific in how we respond to those."


FDA Question #4: How should the GAPs/GMPs Guide be modified to motivate all operations to implement? Please include information on economic impact.


TK: A leading question...making them mandatory, perhaps?



FDA Question #5: Can the GAPs/GMPs Guide be applied equally to, and implemented by, domestic and foreign growers and packers? if not, should the GAPs/GMPs Guide be revised to incorporate additional options or special considerations (e.g., utilizing draft animals for agricultural tasks) for application and implementation?

TK: For example, can the Amish use horse-drawn wagons at harvest and be in compliance?


FDA Question: #6: Is there a need for additional guidance to assist an operator in determining which provisions of the current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations (e.g. post harvest water quality, disease control, cleanliness and supervision) could be implemented voluntarily for operations that currently are excluded under Sec. 110.19? If so, which ones?


TK: End of the exclusion for GMP compliance for whole produce packers?


FDA Question #7 Should the GAPs/GMPs Guide recommend that growers and other relevant operations develop a written food safety plan, written SOPs, and/or written SSOPs? If so, please describe the types of information or recommendations that you believe would be helpful.


FDA Question #8: Records can be divided into the following two broad groups: 1) records to facilitate traceback, and 2) non-tracebook or operational records. Does the GAPs/GMPs Guide provide sufficient recommendations regarding record keeping? If not, please describe what would be most helpful and why.


TK: Traceability rears its head again.


FDA Question #9 The recent produce safety initiatives concerning leafy greens and tomatoes highlighted the importance of performing environmental assessments before planting, throughout production and prior to harvest. Would it be useful to enhance coverage of thee concepts in the GAPs/GMPs guide?

TK: Can science based numbers be established for environmental assessments?
.
FDA Question # 10. Several newer produce safety programs, such as the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement (Ref. 8), incorporate recommendations (or requirements) for microbial testing. Does the information on microbial testing in the GAPs/GMPs Guide provide sufficient information?

FDA Question # 11. Some comments submitted in connection with the 2007 public hearings expressed concerns that field management activities intended to minimize microbial hazards, such as removing vegetation to reduce animal harborage near the production field, could have a negative, albeit unintended, impact on the environment and water sheds, among other areas. What data support these concerns? Could/should the GAPs/GMPs Guide do more to identify, address, and possibly mitigate unintended environmental consequences of food safety measures?

FDA Question # 12. Are there existing regulatory requirements at the Federal, State, or local level that act as a disincentive (or as an incentive) for growers or other operators to implement agricultural or manufacturing practices that should be taken into consideration when updating this guidance to reduce the risk of microbial contamination of fresh produce? If yes, please identify and explain.

Where we are headed

There is a lot of back and forth in today's hearing about traceability, best practices, preventive controls, who's in charge, mandatory recall authority, a little bit about compensation.

Bottom line: the industry leaders on the first panel testifying today (including Stenzel and Beckman) are generally ready to back more stringent traceability standards than the 2002 Bioterrorism Act on a risk-based commodity specific standard. For example, tomatoes will be a prime candidate for a more stringent national regulation.

What is less clear is if the FDA will get industry backing for the authority to impose preventive controls at the farm level and through the supply chain. Perhaps again, this will be negotiated on a commodity specific basis.

The FDA will have mandatory recall authority in any coming food safety legislation. However, one committee member worried that if the FDA calls a mandatory recall that is later found to be based on erroneous information, the government would be on the hook for compensation to growers. He's got a point; if a unsubstantiated FDA advisory prompts call for compensation, how much more would a mandatory recall that turned out to be bogus?

Meanwhile, this story from The New York Times Amid Salmonella Case, Food Industry Seems Set to Back Greater Regulation speaks to the fact that industry may be prepared to bend to more regulation. From the story:

Food industry leaders set to appear Thursday before a House committee say they will testify about what they view as mistakes in the federal response to the continuing salmonella outbreak as well as fundamental failures in the nation’s food safety system.

At the same time, however, several food safety experts say, industry leaders are also questioning whether the weak produce-tracking rules that many of them once championed are more a curse than a blessing. As they tally the financial losses from the largest food-borne outbreak of illness in the last decade, produce businesses now show signs of embracing broader regulations for traceability.

“I think that now the industry is realizing based on this outbreak that we need to have the ability to trace back so we can segregate where the problem is and not devastate the entire industry,” said Mike Doyle, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia.

Produce industry leaders scheduled to appear at the House hearing, before the Energy and Commerce Committee, said they would call for government agencies to divulge details of initial studies that linked the salmonella outbreak to raw tomatoes.

A Whole Lot Of Words

Let the games begin. May they prove fruitful for all concerned.

You’ve read Tom Karst’s report of Tony DiMare’s opening statement at the House hearings this afternoon. Besides this document, I’ve briefly glanced at the ones by Dr. Acheson of the FDA and Dr. Osterholm of the University of Minnesota. Nothing earth-shattering there---they say what you’d expect them to say---Acheson dancing & ‘CYA’-ing, and Osterholm interestingly scaling somewhat back in his vitriol towards the process. Check ‘em out yourself at Tom’s link provided above.

But…so far, the star of the show for me is Tom Stenzel of the United Fresh Produce Association. He’s comes as close as anyone at pointing the finger at FDA’s methodology, which is at the crux of the matter:


Despite some hurdles which I will address later, FDA in fact was able to trace tomatoes eaten by sick consumers back to the farm. The only problem was those tracebacks kept pointing to different farms. Rather than complaining about the complexity of the tomato industry and so-called false leads sending the search to myriad farms across two countries, the evidence was staring government in the face. There was no common point where all of these tomatoes could have been contaminated, whether at the farm or in repacking at the wholesale level. Traceback worked; it just didn’t confirm the hypothesis that the Centers for Disease Control had advanced, and that we now know was most likely wrong.


And, due no doubt to repeated calls from membership up and down the tomato distribution chain, Stenzel pleads for compensation, sympathetically but shrewdly:


If I may Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a brief comment about compensation. We all know the error in CDC’s initial assessment that fresh tomatoes were the sole cause of this outbreak. While CDC has not yet stepped away from its suspicion that tomatoes might have caused some of the earlier illnesses, this is neither a likely nor plausible position without some real evidence. The fact that consumers didn’t know that they had eaten jalapenos chopped up in salsas, garnishes, or other foods is no reason for CDC to cling to the accuracy of their initial food surveys just out of pride. Even good scientists can make a mistake, and there’s no shame in admitting that consumers apparently were just unaware of this hidden ingredient in their foods.

There can be no doubt that this has been a disaster for the tomato industry, and we support Congressman Mahoney’s HR 6581 as a step toward providing disaster assistance to our agricultural sector just as vital as any hurricane or flood. It’s also a fact that this disaster struck every company in the tomato supply chain whether they had to discard full warehouses of perfectly healthy tomatoes, haul product to the dump, watch fruit rot on the vine, or plow fields under. I know well that this is the Agriculture Committee, but I ask you to think about both the growers we represent, and also our growers’ customers who had already paid for their produce, but were forced to discard millions of dollars of product.


More comments later, but I’ll need a whole pitcher of iced tea to decipher some of this stuff, and the ulterior motives attached.

Later,

Jay

First up - House Subcommittee on Horticulture

Here is the only Congressional hearing today. Rep. Rosa DeLauro's oversight hearing on the appropriations subcommittee - previously scheduled for today - has been postponed until after the August work period.


Wednesday, July 30th – 1:00 p.m.1300 Longworth House Office Building
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture — Public Hearing.RE: To review legal and technological capacity for full traceability in fresh produce.
WITNESS LIST
Panel I
The Honorable Diana DeGette, Member of Congress from the First Congressional District of Colorado
Honorable Adam Putnam, Member of Congress from the Twelfth Congressional District of Florida
Panel II
Dr. David W.K. Acheson, M.D., Associate Commissioner for Food Protection, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland
Dr. Lonnie J. King, Director, DVM, National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases (ZVED), Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia
Panel III
Mr. Anthony J. DiMare, Vice President, DiMare Homestead Inc., DiMare Ruskin Inc., and DiMare Johns Island Inc., Ruskin, Florida
Mr. Henry L. Giclas, Vice President, Strategic Planning, Science and Technology, Western Growers Association, Irvine, California
Mr. Brian Silberman, President, Produce Marketing Association, Newark, Delaware
Mr. Thomas E. Stenzel, President and CEO, United Fresh Produce Association, Washington, DC
Panel IV
Dr. James R. Gorny, Ph.D., Executive Director, Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis, California
Ms. Jean Halloran, Director, Food Policy Initiatives, Consumers Union, Yonkers, New York
Dr. Michael Osterholm, Director, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota


TK: Here is the link to the witness list of tomorrow's hearing at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, oversignts and investigations subcommittee.

Impossible criteria?

In the Food Safe message board, I recently posted the column co-written by Tom Stenzel and Bryan Silbermann that was published in The Packer. The column brought this reaction I'm posting here from one message board member. It speaks to an important question; how can FDA and lawmakers regulate according to risk when there is insufficient data to meet that criteria? What is the solution to that?


Quoting from Stenzel and Silbermann...
"These measures must be risk-based and commodity-specific to address the greatest areas of risk as identified by government. They must also be science-based, to ensure they are proven effective at improving food safety"
while i would certainly appreciate hearing other perspectives, my sense is that at the moment the science is not in place that would make it possible to fulfill these two criteria . . . my sense is that although considerable research is currently in process on risk attribution in foodborne illness (pathogen, vehicle, source), the kinds of definitive results that would meet the silbermann-stenzel criteria are not yet available . . . in part this is because the database for the analysis of these questions is so weak (only a small percentage of foodborne illness outbreaks are ever traced to a vehicle, and outbreaks themselves represent only a small percentage of foodborne illness in the u.s.) . . .
if that description of the current situation is accurate, do the silbermann-stenzel criteria present a reasonable effort to move forward on food safety, or a hurdle that cannot be overcome in the forseeable future . . .
cheers,

craig
craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan agricultural experiment station
national food safety and toxicology center
institute for food and agricultural standards
food safety policy center
michigan state university http://www.msu.edu/~harrisc/

When pushback comes to shove

There is a post on the Food Safe message board that talks of "industry pushback" relative to possible food safety reform, and particularly the idea that industry believes that traceback was not the problem in the outbreak investigation. From the board Roy wrote:


It does not take long for the spin doctors and lobbyists to go to work when Congress is considering mandating traceability. Of course traceback is critically important in an outbreak.


I followed on several comments on Roy's post by posting the column that Bryan Silbermann and Tom Stenzel co-wrote for this week's Packer. I noted that I don't see "pushback" in their words as much as a desire by industry leaders to have a say in how they are regulated. An excerpt from that opinion piece from Stenzel and Silbermann:



Long term, we all must accept the reality that our industry's days of "business as usual" are over. After the spinach outbreak in 2006, some said we were just one big outbreak away from mandatory food safety laws being passed by Congress. And now, that outbreak is here. In part because of its flaws, some very important stakeholders -- legislators, regulators and consumers -- have found our food safety efforts to be lacking and are demanding change. Thunder can already be heard from Capitol Hill to FDA headquarters. Hearings are being scheduled, bills are being introduced, regulations are being drafted. Meanwhile, consumers are showing their displeasure with their wallets. The Food Marketing Institute reports that 84% of surveyed consumers said they stopped buying some produce in 2007. While food safety brings added costs to our business, losing consumers is a cost none of us can bear. Our industry's key focus now should be to exert as much control as possible over our destiny moving forward. We are, after all, in the best position to lead the task at hand.


You want industry pushback? As one industry leader told me in a recent email about upcoming Congressional hearings....

"Still...the type of guy that needs to be heard is the shipper's salesman who had every load in gas room inventory sold on June 4, didn't pick after that date, then had them all given back to them by the 9th, and they rotted in the room.

Or the repacker who had (operators) empty their houses in reverse, sending every tomato they had back to the guy that sold it to them. In effect, 'take these back or we'll never do business again'.

A message from Stenzel

TK: This across the inbox this afternoon, United Fresh president Tom Stenzel previews not only next week's hearings but the continuing debate over government interaction with the trade:


A Message from President Tom Stenzel


Dear United Fresh Members,

Last week, Chairman of the Board Tom Lovelace wrote to tell you of our association’s commitment to driving change in the way government addresses foodborne disease outbreaks, and to seek compensation for those unfairly harmed by this investigation. There’s been so much going on in these areas, let me update you on our progress.

Consumer Warnings/Investigation
First, we’re continuing daily to push government authorities to narrow the current investigation and bring it to a close as quickly as possible. The finding of a sample of jalapeño peppers in a distribution facility in McAllen, TX with the identical DNA fingerprint as the outbreak is an important step toward closure. Yet, the government’s warning not to consume any peppers is destroying markets for hundreds of jalapeño growers and suppliers unrelated to the outbreak, and we’re urging government to lift this total supply chain warning.

Congressional Hearings
Next week three separate Congressional hearings are scheduled to look at this outbreak investigation, what went wrong, and what lessons we can learn for the future. Robert Guenther and Dr. Dave Gombas on our staff have worked hard to brief each committee’s staff in advance of each hearing, providing detailed background on where we see things went wrong and what needs to be done in the future. I’m pleased with the strong slate of industry experts called to testify, along with government officials, academics, consumer groups and others. I’ll be focusing on overall lessons learned in my testimony at two of the hearings, and others will focus on everything from damages to the tomato industry to the loss of consumer confidence in food safety and government.

Legislation to Compensate Tomato Industry
There’s good news here with the introduction of legislation by Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida to provide up to $100 million in compensation to the tomato industry for losses incurred through the misidentification of tomatoes and blanket consumer warnings. Congressman Mahoney gets it, and we’re working with him and Congressional allies to build the case, despite what are frankly some pretty big odds. Even with an uphill fight, we need to drive home the message that government warnings have huge impact, with major financial consequences on those totally unassociated with the outbreak. There simply must be greater recognition of the damage these broad brush actions have. The entire tomato industry suffered here, and we’ve got to make sure that growers, shippers, repackers and fresh-cut tomato processors are fairly compensated. A number of us will advocate strongly in support of this effort in next week’s hearings.

FDA/CDC/HHS Actions
We’re also continuing direct dialogue with FDA about clearing all tomato production regions for the future, as well as broader questions of what went wrong in this investigation, and ways that the system must change in the future. You’ll remember that our association and PMA have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a top-level meeting and ongoing dialogue about these issues, and government staff members are now working to set that up.

National News Media
Media coverage continues to be frustrating, but we’re breaking through here and there. From the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post to USA Today, CNN, ABC, etc., our communications VP Amy Philpott is getting our views in every story we possibly can. Our general assessment is that most media have realized that tomatoes are highly unlikely to have caused any illness whatsoever.

Media stories are now turning to follow-up coverage, focused a lot on what happens next. Many in the consumer advocacy community and Congress are using this outbreak as a means to drive food safety legislation, or prescriptive traceability schemes. Ironically, the major problem in this outbreak investigation was identifying the wrong cause and chasing ghosts far longer than needed. You know that United Fresh supports commodity-specific, risk based regulation that is fair and equitable across an entire commodity. And, we’re working hard to increase efficiencies across our supply chain in traceability. But neither of those topics has anything to do with the failures in this outbreak. Drawing those distinctions for the news media is a challenge, though.

Industry Traceability
Finally, let me add a word about industry traceability, a topic likely to dominate next week’s Congressional hearings. We believe the vast majority of produce companies and their supply chain partners are in compliance with the Bioterrorism Act and its “one-step-up; one-step back” requirements. Industry members take that responsibility seriously. While produce often changes hands between farm and table, industry members are able to track a majority of produce from retail back to farm source. While FDA continues to report major problems in doing tracebacks, others such as Minnesota health officials have said it takes “a few phone calls and you can work it fairly quickly back to the grower.” That is the experience that I hear as well from many of our members across the industry. We believe that when FDA tracks produce, it is more dependent upon a legal trail of paperwork, seeking to make sure that all the details correlate exactly on invoices, bills of lading, etc. This can lead to bogging down in understanding the different ways companies use to track produce within their own operations. It may be confusing to an outsider who is examining hundreds of pages of records in an unfamiliar business, but to most industry members, each part in the distribution chain can effectively determine where it received produce, and keep tracking back to the farm.

Nevertheless, the produce industry understands better than anyone that we need the most efficient and quickest traceability systems possible. We have the most to gain from isolating produce that may be part of a problem as quickly as possible, and a similar incentive to rule out concerns about produce that is clearly not related to a problem. That’s why United Fresh joined with PMA and CPMA last year to launch an initiative to build better transparency, a common framework and nomenclature for case labeling, and streamlined connectivity across the supply chain. That initiative is guided by a Steering Committee of more than 50 produce retailers, wholesalers, distributors, packer-shippers and growers. The committee has met four times this year and is now finalizing action plans and timelines for industry adoption. That’s the best example I know of an industry committed to constant improvement in traceability, not one that requires more government regulation to get the job done.

As you can tell, there’s a lot going on. We’re getting lots of member questions, so I wanted to answer as many of them here as I could. Let’s look forward to clearer days ahead.

Tom Stenzel
President
United Fresh Produce Association

Tomato compensation and searching for the jalapeno king

It is going to be tough to set a dollar amount on the damages incurred by the tomato industry as a result of the salmonella outbreak advisories. Factors such as acreage and weather conditions play into the level of shipments and the market price. One would assume that figures will be put forward in next week's Congressional hearings that attempt to estimate the cost. In fact, here is an AP video on the compensation issues can be found:






Further, here is a press release from Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida about legislation he has already introduced to address the problem:

Following the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) announcement that tomatoes were not the likely source of a recent salmonella outbreak, Congressman Tim Mahoney (FL-16) has introduced a bill, H.R. 6581, to compensate tomato growers and packers nationwide for their losses due to the salmonella scare, which according to the Florida Tomato Exchange's estimates could be close to $100 million.
Congressman Mahoney, who is Florida's only representative on the House Agriculture Committee, also called on the Committee to hold field hearings in his district to examine what reforms are needed to ensure food safety. The Agriculture Committee plans to schedule a hearing in mid-September.
"The FDA's warnings about tomatoes devastated the $1.3 billion tomato industry. Due to the timing of the salmonella outbreak, Florida was hit hard. We need to ensure that all impacted tomato growers and packers are compensated for their losses to protect domestic food production," said Congressman Mahoney. "With unfortunate events like this, Americans are becoming aware that food safety and national security are synonymous. We clearly need to examine and overhaul our food safety system to ensure that the food we grow and import is safe."
In April, the FDA issued a nationwide warning that tomatoes were a possible source of a salmonella outbreak that made 1,220 people ill in 42 states, the District of Columbia and Canada. After a long investigation, the FDA recently determined that fresh tomatoes now available in the domestic market are not associated with the current outbreak and the agency has rescinded its warning against eating certain types of red raw tomatoes.
The Mahoney Bill, which is also cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Allen Boyd, Adam Putnam, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Vern Buchanan, directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make payments to tomato growers and first handlers that were unable to market tomato crops as a result of the Food and Drug Administration's Public Health Advisory issued in June 2008 due to the salmonella outbreak. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will be responsible for issuing regulations and determining eligibility for compensation, as they have in other disaster programs.
"The tomato industry in our state has unfairly suffered enough," Rep. Wasserman Schultz (FL-20) said. "The FDA must reform their trace-back programs so that growers and consumers do not have to go through the same nightmare during future outbreaks."


TK: Don't expect smooth sailing for the bill. In this coverage of Mahoney's bill, the WSJ reported that consumer groups had some "pushback" on the issue.

Consumer advocates oppose the bill. Sarah Klein, a staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the food-industry lobby over the years has weakened federal food-safety oversight, and consumers shouldn't foot the bill now. "We'd like to see the industry focusing on how to prevent these outbreaks for the future to protect consumers and their bottom line," she said.
Tom Stenzel, president of United Fresh Produce Association, said the fresh-produce industry has sought tougher FDA regulation of tomatoes and other items. In recent years, Florida tomato growers and California leafy-green growers pushed through tougher measures in their own states, including mandatory inspections and training.
But the industry disagrees on who should benefit from the bill. Mr. Mahoney said it covers farmers and shippers, which were hit the hardest by the FDA warning. Mr. Stenzel, said it also should cover those further up the supply chain, such as packers and repackers, who suffered damages, too.
It is uncertain whether the bill will pass Congress. There isn't similar legislation in the Senate, and there is little time for lawmakers to act before the November election. Last year, spinach growers unsuccessfully pushed a similar measure to compensate for losses after the government's 2006 recall of fresh spinach after an outbreak of E. coli.







Meanwhile, Luis provided this post at the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group, adding some perspective as to the size and scope of the jalapeno production and exports to the U.S.:



Exports, most of them to the United States, have risen between 10 and 15 percent every year over the last decade and now over 100,000 hectares (247,000 acres) of peppers are grown in Mexico, 80 percent of them jalapenos.
Dozens of varieties of chiles, some which provoke sweating and crying, have become a cooking trend in the United States. Food writer and spice expert Dave DeWitt describes the fad as "culinary bungee jumping."
"Very rarely do you ever hear someone say, 'I used to eat hot and spicy food but now I'm back to bland,'" said DeWitt, the author of over 30 books on chiles like "The Spicy Food Lover's Bible" and "The Chile Pepper Encyclopedia."
Inspectors are holding up truck loads of the some 100 tons of peppers crossing into the United States from Mexico every day, raising the risk of produce being left to rot before it reaches stores, Gochicoa said.

TK: Gary Lucier of the USDA Economic Research reports that imports of fresh chili peppers from Mexico during the first four months of the year - assumed to be mostly jalapenos - were up 25% compared with the same period a year ago. Shipments through the first four months of the year translated to about one pound of fresh chili peppers per person in the U.S.


Developing...I'm on the scout for a few shippers of fresh jalapenos for a market update...If there is a "jalapeno king," I will find him....

Headlines - Consumer confidence and traceability

Major league attention is being paid to the fresh produce industry these days. While the attention isn't always about the wholesome goodness or the unfailing attributes of fruits and vegetables, it is remarkable scrutiny nonetheless. Here are a couple of headlines from high profile writers that illustrate the point;

Tracking produce proves complex The Washington Post
From the story:

Investigators said the complexity of the produce distribution system has been their biggest impediment, and some produce industry leaders agree that tracing fruits and vegetables could be easier. Though the technology to do so already exists in the form of bar codes that appear on nearly everything we buy, it could take as long as five years before the entire food industry applies it to food safety.
Produce outbreaks are notoriously hard to trace. In at least half of all produce outbreaks, health officials have never determined what made people sick. The short shelf life of most fresh fruits and vegetables means it's less likely the items will still be in people's refrigerators when investigators come looking. Plus, there are many paths produce can take to reach consumers. In the salmonella probe, health officials said the practice of repacking made it harder to trace tomatoes to their source. Repacking involves sorting produce for size and color to meet a customer's specifications. Fresh tomatoes are often repacked, sometimes more than once. For investigators, the practice can open a multitude of new leads. Investigators trying to find the source of contaminated jalapeños have run into "the same spider web," said David Acheson, a top food safety official at the FDA.
For some produce industry leaders, references to spider webs sound like excuses for mistakes in judgment. "We are not dealing with failure of traceability. We are dealing with the fact that the trace-back did not support the single point of contamination hypothesis," said Tom Stenzel, president of United Fresh Produce Association. "We would submit that trace-back worked; we just weren't listening carefully enough to what it was telling us."

TK: The assertion by Stenzel and other industry leaders that "trace-back" worked will be closely scrutinized in upcoming hearings. Will this claim be supported by the officials at FDA or CDC? How does this position sync with the desire to get the industry moving on broader progress on traceability solutions for the supply chain? If trace-back worked, what's the rush on the part of industry players in moving forward with the traceability initiative? There is a delicate balance act going on between defending the industry, pointing out the errors of the FDA and preparing the industry for new demands and mandates.

Another headline: Food Safety Worries Change Buying Habits

TK: Jay Martini also linked to this AP story in another blog post. The upshot is that consumers "overwhelmingly support" setting up a trace-back system for produce, with four in five supporting "enforceable federal standards." As if on cue, the stars are aligning for Congressional action, it would seem.

Put tomatoes back on shelves and menus with confidence

Sliding across the inbox this morning:

Florida Tomato Committee has signed the following letter that was forwarded to retail and foodservice buyers this morning. The Committee encourages you to forward to customers and colleagues as well.

ALLIANCE FOR FOOD AND FARMING
CALIFORNIA TOMATO FARMERS
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION
FLORIDA TOMATO COMMITTEE
PRODUCE MARKETING ASSOCIATION
UNITED FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION
WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION

June 12, 2008

To the retail and foodservice produce-buying community:

With the good news that tomatoes from certain Florida counties and 30 other states or countries have been ruled out as the sources of the ongoing Salmonella saintpaul illness outbreak, we encourage you to now put those tomatoes back on your shelves and menus with confidence.

With the wellbeing of our consumers at the top of our minds, we have all worked together over the past 10 days to help the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to locate the source. FDA and CDC’s very thorough epidemiological and traceback investigations have now definitively ruled out round red and Roma/plum tomatoes from most production areas, and all other types of tomatoes regardless of source. According to FDA, these tomatoes cannot be the source of the illnesses.

We share your interest in protecting public health, first and foremost, and our industry strives to ensure our customers receive safe and healthy produce every bite, every time. Our thoughts and prayers have been with the people who were sickened by this ordeal.

Our tomato industry and producers in these areas are ready and eager to supply you with safe and healthy tomatoes; please contact your shipper partners to place new orders today. They have already paid a high price to protect public health, and shouldn’t be needlessly punished any further while the investigation is completed. Nor should our end customers be deprived any longer of safe supplies of one of the true joys of summer eating, tomatoes. Getting tomatoes back in our retail stores and on the menus is the most important step we can all take to restore consumer confidence.

We are in constant communication with the FDA in an effort to monitor this situation, which, as you know, is changing daily. If you have any questions about which tomato products and/or growing regions have been excluded from the investigation and are safe to ship, please contact us. If you would like any assistance with consumer communications, please contact your state and national organizations for assistance. We look forward to helping you put tomatoes back on the shelves, and back on the menu.

Sincerely,

Marilyn Dolan, Alliance for Food and Farming
Ed Beckman, California Tomato Farmers
Mike Stuart, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
Reggie Brown, Florida Tomato Committee
Bryan Silbermann, Produce Marketing Association
Tom Stenzel, United Fresh Produce Association
Tom Nassif, Western Growers Association

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.....

Stenzel's reaction to Putnam Costa

Just slid across the inbox: the expected endorsement from United:

Washington, DC – United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel issued the following statement today regarding the Safe Food Enforcement, Assessment, Standards and Targeting Act (Safe FEAST Act), a new bipartisan food safety bill introduced in the House of Representatives today by Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) and Rep. Adam Putman (R-FL).
“We congratulate Congressmen Costa and Putman on their leadership in introducing the Safe FEAST Act of 2008. There are a number of provisions in this bipartisan bill that can work to enhance a strong food safety regulatory framework that builds public confidence in fresh produce. We look forward to working with Congressmen Costa and Putman on the details of their bill, as well as other Congressional leaders in both the House and Senate.
“Fresh produce is an essential part of the diet to improve public health, with the federal government’s own 2005 Dietary Guidelines calling for consumption of 9-13 servings per day for fruits and vegetables. That’s almost double current consumption for most consumers, and has led to the public health campaign Fruits and Veggies: More Matters led by the Centers for Disease Control and the Produce for Better Health Foundation.
“To meet these health goals, the public must have confidence that the federal government, states, produce companies and growers are working together across the total produce industry to assure the safest possible foods. Our industry is committed to employing best agricultural and handling practices for both domestically grown and imported foods, and looks forward to continuing to work with Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the states to ensure that we provide the safest and most healthy, nutritious produce possible to American consumers.”

United in Las Vegas for 2009 - and beyond?

I heard rumblings of United's decision to stay in Vegas for 2009 when I was in DC last week, but was never able to connect with Tom Stenzel to ask him about it. What happens after 2009? While United surely has wiggle room to do what it feels is best, don't be surprised if the show stays in Vegas for a few years. Here is a release from United Fresh Produce Association about next year's show:

United Fresh Produce Association Launches Expanded 2009 Show in Las Vegas

Washington, D.C. - United Fresh Produce Association announced today that it will expand its annual trade show and convention to focus on produce innovations, fresh meals, and technology solutions for the retail and foodservice marketing channels, and the total fresh produce and fresh meals supply chains.

UNITED FRESH 2009 will be centrally located at the Sands Expo Center and The Venetian Hotel in the middle of the Las Vegas Strip, April 22-24, 2009. Both the full expo and all convention education programming will be easily accessible from the magnificent Venetian Hotel, which will serve as the headquarters hotel for the event.

UNITED FRESH 2009 is the umbrella show encompassing two unique expos – United Fresh Marketplace and United FreshTech. New for 2009, each expo will feature its own show floor Learning Center, where attendees will focus on business strategies and education for success. This on-floor education will complement the traditional United Fresh Annual Convention featuring a full array of general sessions, workshops, receptions and networking events bringing the entire industry together to focus on increased sales and profitability.

As part of its expanded focus on fresh foods, UNITED FRESH 2009 will feature a new Meal Solutions Showcase highlighting innovation and product development that combines fresh fruits, vegetables and other fresh foods into prepared meals and healthy snacks. This new focus on fresh prepared foods will serve the growing business of in-store foodservice operations and the wide array of restaurants and other channels traditionally focused on prepared foods.

UNITED FRESH 2009 will once again feature its Food Safety & Research Pavilion, bringing together an expanded number of companies with food safety solutions for each segment of the supply chain, as well as universities and government agencies with tools and research to assist the industry. The show will also include a Featured Product Center with an opportunity for attendees to evaluate new products, an International Visitors Lounge, and a series of private business suites that exhibitors may choose for meetings on the show floor.

Also new for 2009, the association will launch UNITED FRESH 2009 ONLINE! later this summer, creating a virtual trade show marketplace that allows potential buyers across the world to search an interactive exhibitor database for new products and services, contact exhibitors directly for product information, and learn about new business opportunities leading up to the Las Vegas show in April. Exhibitors who sign up for the 2009 show will automatically be included in this online virtual marketplace, offering a year-round marketing platform.

“UNITED FRESH 2009 will build on the successful launch of our show in Las Vegas this year, which will welcome more than 100 companies as new exhibitors, with thousands of qualified buyers and attendees already outpacing last year’s registration,” said United Fresh President Tom Stenzel. “As we look to 2009, it’s clear that there will be a growing commitment to the show from foodservice and other marketing channels in addition to its supermarket base, as well as strong interest from buyers and sellers in the expanding fresh meals sector. Fresh produce is at the center of much of this new product development, and our unique combination of both the FreshTech and Fresh Marketplace expos provides the only event where the total supply chain and business leaders in this growing category come together,” he said.

“We have enjoyed a great relationship with the Food Marketing Institute these past five years, but with FMI’s decision not to hold its traditional supermarket show in 2009, we’ve actually been able to appreciate the underlying strength and potential of our own event as a multi-channel, total supply chain show serving a much broader audience of buyers,” Stenzel said. “We’re excited that UNITED FRESH 2009 will be able to forge its own unique platform in highlighting produce innovations, fresh meals and technology solutions, rather than being viewed only in its connection with one retail channel. Already, a number of foodservice providers are stepping up their attendance at the show, and we see our expanded fresh meals focus in 2009 serving both in-store supermarket needs as well as traditional restaurants and facilities where fresh produce and fresh foods are served.”

Details about UNITED FRESH 2009 will be shared with current exhibitors in Las Vegas, who have first priority to reserve space and begin sign-ups onsite May 3. The priority period will run through June 15, 2008, during which a waiting list for new exhibitors will be established first-come, first served. As a courtesy to current FMI exhibitors interested in the UNITED FRESH 2009 show, United Fresh will also extend early-sign to these companies during the priority period

Coming on

Had some visits today with David Gombas of United, Michelle Smith of FDA and sat in on a little bit of a labor hearing, where Reggie Brown of the Florida Tomato Committee was testifying. I missed the farm bill conference hearing, but I've heard that not a lot happened.

From a Capitol Hill staffer, I heard there there will be a Putnam-Cardoza produce safety bill introduced in the not too distant future.

Will the WIC food packages be reopened? Juice and fresh potato interests (United also favors including potatoes) wants to revise the packages, and others want to gain back the $2 per month lost in rulemaking. I have an interview with John Keeling on Thursday and I'm sure the topic will come up....

Tomorrow I'll spend some time at the USDA and try to catch some more or the farm bill conference.

What - or more accurately, where - is the future venue of United's shows? Haven't seen Tom Stenzel this week to ask him, and no one else on United staff is spilling the beans. When I see Tom, I'll see if he has any news....

United news: Wenzing on board

Here is fresh news that just slid across the inbox: Congratulations Claudia... reaction coming in Packer coverage.


United hires Industry Veteran Claudia Wenzing

Washington, D.C. - United Fresh Produce Association announced today that Claudia Wenzing, a member of the senior staff of Produce for Better Health Foundation (PBH) for the past 12 years, will join United Fresh April 28 as Vice President of Business Development.
“Claudia is known throughout the produce industry for her passion, motivation and commitment,” said United Fresh President Tom Stenzel. “We are thrilled that Claudia has chosen as her next career step to pursue a mutual vision to develop new programs, services and tools to help our member companies and the industry overall enhance their long-term sales and profitability,” Stenzel said.
“United Fresh has strongly supported PBH since its formation as an important avenue for our industry to encourage consumers to increase their consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables,” said United Fresh Chairman Emanuel Lazopoulos, Del Monte Fresh. “Our association is committed to continuing that support, and working with PBH to ensure a positive transition for both organizations. Our own company Del Monte is a long-time supporter of PBH, and we will miss Claudia’s great spirit at the Foundation. But, while I’m sad to see her leave the Foundation she has served so well all these years, I’m also pleased that she has chosen to launch the next stage in her career still in the fresh produce industry with United Fresh. Truly, we are all one team to grow produce consumption, and it’s great to have Claudia continue to provide leadership to this effort,” he said.
"I am very grateful for the experiences I was afforded through my affiliation with the Produce for Better Health Foundation,” Wenzing said. “I am extremely excited about this new career chapter and finding new avenues in which to give back to the produce industry."
Claudia served as PBH Development Director from 1996-2000, and since that time as Vice President of Development. She has been responsible for both annual and special campaign fundraising, planned giving, and working with industry members to support the Foundation through ongoing sponsorships of activities and programs. Previously, she worked in fundraising and development for Youth Services International, a residential academy serving at-risk youth, from 1993-1996. She earned her bachelors degree in psychology Magna Cum Laude from Towson State University in Maryland.
At United Fresh, Claudia will work with President Tom Stenzel in serving the needs of both the association and the United Fresh Research and Education Foundation. For United Fresh, Claudia will work to help member companies by developing programs and linkages that boost overall produce sales and profitability. For the United Fresh Foundation, she will work to continue strengthening the Foundation as a primary source of education and training, food safety programs, and leadership development to help the produce industry better serve the consuming public. Claudia, herself, is a graduate of Class 9 of the United Fresh Produce Industry Leadership Program.
With Claudia’s expertise and knowledge of our industry, she will hit the ground running at this year’s annual United Fresh 2008 convention in Las Vegas, May 4-7.
"I'm looking forward to seeing all my friends in the industry at the convention, and having this unique opportunity to help grow this great business,” she said.

Stenzel speech at Outlook Forum

Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Produce Association, presented this speech today at the USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum. Titled "Responding to Market Forces to Build a Sustainable U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Industry,' Stenzel suggests the government can better help industry respond to market forces.

Some excerpts:

Let me share our thinking today about a new vision in agricultural policy. The fruit and vegetable industry does not want direct support for our growers; we don’t want price protection; I’m not even sure we want a safety net. The ability to fail in our business protects the opportunity of those who are driven to succeed. What we do want is investment that allows us to build a sustainable U.S. fruit and vegetable industry that can be successful in a free market economy, and find value for those who “get it right.”
Incidentally, I don’t know where the final Farm Bill numbers will come out for fruit and vegetable priorities. But I do know that an historic coalition of rural and urban legislators, Republicans and Democrats, supporters of traditional farm programs and those who oppose them, have all come together to support targeted, meaningful investment in the competitiveness of this sector. That alone is a breakthrough, if but a start. Our industry is engaged in agricultural policy today because we’re having to respond to a different set of market forces than we’ve seen before. Many of you know those market forces all too well. Our growers operate in the most highly regulated and costly environment of any of our major competitors. Finding an adequate and legal workforce for this most labor-intensive sector of agriculture has become next to impossible. The fight over land and water use between agriculture and development is growing, and is most severe in our most productive growing areas. And, while we support free and fair trade in fruits and vegetables, it seems that trade agreements have too often been one-sided deals with open access permitted to the U.S. market only to see continuing phytosanitary barriers erected to block our exports. Increasingly, those signals add up to one message to produce growers in the United States – move your production outside of the country, or send your kids to law school.

TK: After talking about the internal industry process of creating policy for the 2007 farm bill - notably specialty crop block grants and the fruit and vegetable program - Stenzel concluded with a plea that the White and House and Congress to respond to the market signals of dietary health and food safety. Stenzel also delivers a well-aimed zinger to Lou Dobbs: From the speech:

Soon, we will move beyond this Farm Bill, and face other challenges in sustaining our fruit and vegetable and specialty crop industry. The market challenges we face won’t go away, and many are likely to become even greater. Worldwide attention on food safety is placing significant demands on growers, and we will rise to that challenge better than anyone. But we do need more government research into ways to minimize the potential of field contamination, reduction in harmful E Coli in the natural environmental, quicker testing methods and traceability systems for recall situations, and more effective kill steps for pathogens in processing. Without a breakthrough on immigration reform, our labor shortage won’t go away either. There’s probably no greater threat to our industry today than the shortage of workers and disregard for the future of specialty crop agriculture in America that is currently being shown by zealots on immigration. That too will be a market force we must respond to, with mechanization where we can, but more and more with offshore production. I just want you to remember that Lou Dobbs is the one exporting agricultural production and jobs that will never come back. And finally, back to nutrition and health. As great as the school snack program is, it is only a start on what we need to do change the way America eats. We can no longer afford an agricultural policy disconnected from public health policy. The fruit and vegetable industry can no longer be a step-child in the farm debate. With specialty crops already representing almost 50% of farm crop value, and fruits and vegetables representing 50% of all foods Americans should consume every day for better health, it is time for parity in the investments we make in agriculture. Every dollar spent to increase the competitiveness of U.S. fruit and vegetable producers serves all Americans who desperately need our products for their health. And, every dollar spent in helping our children choose a healthier diet based on fruits and vegetables will come back to us in lower health care costs. When we talk about responding to market signals, those are the new kinds of market signals that the Congress and Administrations to come will need to think about in the future..

TK: Talking to Stenzel after the speech, he said one of the things that came out in the panel discussion was the importance of energy policy in the context of farm policy. In the same way, Stenzel said he made the case that public health policy should become more integrated with farm policy. If the Administration set dietary goals in the same way it sets targets for ethanol production - with clear intent and purpose to make it happen - perhaps there would be more progress in the battle against obesity and for improved health through a better diet.