Western Growers and California Farm Bureau sound off on EPA regulation of soil fumigants

More concerns from the industry about the EPA's soil fumigant proposal. From California Farm Bureau and Western Growers, posted Oct. 30 on the federal docket:


Comments on USEPA’s July 16, 2008 Federal Register Soil Fumigant Proposal for Chloropicrin, Metam Sodium/Potassium, and Methyl Bromide Reregistrtaion Eligibility Decisions.

Summary points

The proposed regulations will jeopardize the safety and quantity of fresh grown fruits and vegetables in the western United States. Fumigation is essential to control pests and pathogens in order to produce an abundant, safe and affordable food supply.
Growers and pest control advisors are in the best position to determine and perform pest management treatment options. These decisions are based on weather conditions, soil conditions, the presence of soil-borne diseases, plant pathogens, pest pressures and other factors. The proposed RED would significantly alter and drastically impact this ongoing successful pest management strategy and fumigation treatments would be made based on regulatory compliance and buffer zones requirements instead of treatment efficacy.
The ultimate effect of these changes cannot be predicted, but will surely include lost production acreage, lower yields, lower quality produce, and the use of more pesticides to counteract the effect of suboptimal fumigation treatments at the start of the crop cycles.
Overall, we are concerned that the proposal will add significant costs and complexities to the production community with no benefit. We believe that this mitigation proposal is trying to fix a problem generally caused by illegal applications. Industry and the grower community have worked closely to effectively deter such actions through various initiatives, stewardship activities, legislation and improvements in county and state processes and oversight. The tremendous economic losses that producers will face are compounded by the compliance and enforcement activities that will over-commit many state and county agencies. As noted these agencies and jurisdictions are currently experiencing budget shortfalls that leave them underfunded and understaffed. We believe USEPA/OPP must address this potential unfunded federal mandate.
We wholeheartedly reiterate our concerns that the USEPA has not taken into account the benefit/cost calculations for buffer zone distance, first responder education, notice to state agencies, and cost to farmers, fumigant applicators, and eventually to consumers. We strongly encourage the Agency to adhere to the same tenets of using the best available science as they mandate from registrants and the agricultural community.
Summary of key considerations:

Several concepts included in this document were not part of any previous public hearing or informational meeting that we attended. We question their origin and validity to be included in the mitigation proposal. Why are items such as Dräger tubes being introduced at the end of this process without previous discussion?

We request that EPA provide more reasonable buffer zones through the use of appropriate models for each fumigant, rather than using the PERFUM model for all them.

Eliminate the proposal for a 48-hour time duration for each buffer zone per application.

Allow overlapping buffer zones.

Delete the proposed requirement for using Dräger tubes as monitoring devices.

Eliminate the proposal for Fumigant Management Plans.

Eliminate posting for buffer zones.

Delete the First Responder Training requirements as a registrant responsibility and instead work with state Office of Emergency Services to build a better training opportunity and process.

Community outreach/town hall meetings requirements should be removed from the mitigation proposal.

WG: comment on COOL

From the federal docket on COOL, the comment from Western Growers and Matt McInerney. WG addresses abbreviations, documentation, third party audits, bulk displays and USDA guidance.




September 29, 2008



Country of Origin Labeling Program, Room 2607-S
Agricultural Marketing Services
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Stop 0254
1400 Independence Avenue, SW Facsimile: 202-354-4693
Washington, DC 20250-0254 http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0081 - Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling

Western Growers (WG) has commented on the two previous COOL notices and hereby submits its comments on the final interim rule.

WG is an agricultural trade association representing nearly 3,000 growers, packers, and shippers of fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables. WG members grow, pack, and ship 70 percent of the fresh fruits and nuts and 90 percent of the fresh vegetables produced in the states of Arizona and California.

WG supports the Department’s streamlined approach final interim rule; however, we offer the following comments relating to specific provisions in an effort to provide greater clarity, particularly in areas where we have noted some confusion or ambiguity on the part of our growers and shippers of fresh produce commodities.

Abbreviations – Section 60.300(e)

We agree with the Department that country abbreviations should be unmistakably identifiable. The Department refers to CBP which maintains a list of approved country abbreviations, however, a review of the CBP approved country abbreviations reveals that many abbreviations may not provide consumers with an identifiable country of origin and would not, therefore attain the set goal of COOL. In addition, the referral to CBP is an extremely difficult website to navigate and therefore not workable. The produce industry needs clear examples and USDA should publish guidance lists from as many reliable sources as practical, including CBP, in order to maximize flexibility to allow the produce industry to have as many abbreviation sources as possible.

As for shipping documentation, WG does not believe that shipping documents exchanged within the trade distribution channels should be required to include a legend for origin abbreviations on each document as most within the industry will be familiar with the majority of commodities and their origins. Additionally, virtually all shipping cartons will contain the full printed name of the country of origin. Therefore, this requirement is not all necessary and would be duplicative.


Audit and Enforcement – Section

WG would request that the Department amend the requirement for producing documentary evidence material from a 5 day to a more reasonable 30 day period. WG believes that a 5 day period may not always allow a retailer or other entity sufficient time to produce all necessary records without causing disruption to the normal business practice. Further WG believes that a 30 day period would not be unreasonable and would be consistent with the same time frame provided by the Secretary for a retailer or supplier to take corrective steps in order to be compliant.

Also, the Department must emphasize that 3rd party verification audits are not a requirement. Consistent with PACA, a buyer is entitled to rely on seller representation.

Markings – Bulk Displays

WG urges the Department to adopt a reasonable standard for labeling by stickered commodities displayed in bulk. WG believes that a threshold of approximately 30 percent should be set for commodities in a bulk display as stickered with the overall industry goal of 50 percent. This should provide more than adequate information/notice to the consumer as to the origin of the commodity.

Processed or Blended Commodities

WG urges the Agency to be consistent when determining exemptions. The purpose of COOL is to enable a consumer to determine the source of the commodity being considered for purchase. While marketplace influence will help determine the extent of labeling practices, providing exemptions for some covered commodities and not others does not provide consistent labeling requirements.

The Agency has determined that when distinct covered commodities are packaged together they are exempt from labeling requirements, while two different covered commodities of the same genus botanical family are apparently required to be labeled. As an example lettuce and carrots packaged as a salad blend are exempt, but iceberg lettuce and red leaf lettuce mixed together would not be exempt.

WG believes that the Agency must be consistent in the guidance. The Agency needs to give specific guidance whether it is based on commodities from the same genus, family, order or sub-class, etc. Merely citing an example of two commodities does not provide the needed definite guidance in determining whether labeling is required.



Finally, WG requests that when discussing or issuing a rule, the Department refrain from referring to non-related commodity groupings or previous COOL rulings rather than citing specific examples. Previous Agency comments have actually caused some confusion within industry segments when using examples of shell-fish or meat when addressing fresh fruits or vegetables. While some of the basics may be the same, detailed explanations using unrelated commodity groupings may actually lead to greater confusion rather than clarification for those seeking Agency advice or rulings.

Sincerely,



Matthew M. McInerney
Executive Vice President

WG: Don't terminate Arnold

From Western Growers, a news release about embattled Governor Schwarzenegger:


IRVINE, CA (September 15, 2008) - Western Growers today announced its strong support for Governor Schwarzenegger and its equally strong opposition to the effort by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) to initiate a recall of the Governor. Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif made the following statement:

“The attempt to launch a recall campaign against Governor Schwarzenegger is senseless and without merit. While we have not always agreed with his positions, we have always known that Governor Schwarzenegger puts the interests of the people of California first. His leadership is marked by a willingness to take on California’s most intractable issues in spite of the political risks that come with them. We are confident that the failure of this ill-advised recall attempt will reconfirm the confidence of the people of California in Governor Schwarzenegger.”

Western Growers was the first major business organization to endorse Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 2003 gubernatorial recall campaign


Other coverage of Cali's troubles:
Budget showdown
Better off with Arnold?

WG: Early take on "More with Less"

The Pacific Institute released a 69-page report today on ag water efficiency called "More with less"

From the summary and conclusion:

Agriculture is important to our economy, culture, and environment but is subject to mounting pressure from uncontrolled urbanization, global market pressures, and threats to the reliability and availability of fresh water. Actions are needed to both ensure a sustainable agricultural sector and to reduce the water required for it.
-- Better combined land and water planning is needed. For example, strengthen recent legislation, such as the Costa and Kuehl Acts (SB 610 and SB 221) to ensure all new developments have an adequate water supply for at least 100 years. In addition, the number of new housing units required to trigger implementation of these acts should be reduced.

- Modify and expand the Williamson Act to encourage protection of prime agricultural land from urban and suburban development. Water conservation and efficiency improvements can reduce water use and improve water quality while maintaining or increasing crop yield. Yet these improvements often entail significant investment (capital and operation and management costs), which can be a
barrier to implementation. Smart policies can reduce this barrier. More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California Special Focus on the Delta

-- Provide sales tax exemptions or rebates on efficient irrigation equipment to help offset capital
investments for these systems.
-- Provide property tax exemptions for farmers who upgrade to more water-efficient irrigation systems. Exemptions apply to the value added to a property by the irrigation system and be valid for 5 to 10 years.
-- Develop new legal mechanisms by which municipal water or state or local wildlife agencies could invest in farmers’ irrigation systems in exchange for some portion of the water conserved.

-- The state, federal government, and/or energy providers should offer rebates or incentives to farmers who implement on-farm conservation measures that result in a net energy savings.

-- The state and/or federal government should investigate and establish other mechanisms that encourage water-use efficiency if they achieve broader social or environmental benefits. Agricultural commodity-support programs typically subsidize field crops, inadvertently encouraging the production of low-value, water-intensive crops. These programs should be refocused on the potential to save water.
-- Reduce or realign subsidies from low-value, water-intensive crops to less water-intensive crops.
-- Provide greater emphasis on water conservation and efficiency improvements within the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program and expand funding for these initiatives.

-- Implement new water rate structures that encourage efficient use of water.

Federal and state government has invested substantially in the construction of irrigation systems, without full repayment. By creating an artificially-inexpensive supply of water, these indirect water subsidies provide a disincentive for water conservation and efficiency improvements. Eliminate programs that encourage inefficient use.

-- Ensure federal contracts for the Central Valley Project achieve full repayment by 2030 or
sooner.
-- Avoid inappropriate public subsidies for new water-supply options that are more expensive than efficiency improvements. The existing water rights system in California provides disincentives for water conservation and efficiency improvements. More aggressive efforts are needed to apply the constitutionally mandated concepts of reasonable and beneficial use in ways that encourage improvements in water-use efficiency.
-- Give legislative, regulatory, and administrative support to developing a more rational water rights system. In particular, the State Water Resources Control Board’s authority and funding should be expanded to include groundwater and to challenge inefficient use as neither reasonable nor beneficial

Here is the early take on the report from Western Growers:

IRVINE, CA (September 8, 2008) - Today, the Pacific Institute released a detailed report entitled, “More with Less,” Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California. Western Growers is studying this report in more detail and in the coming weeks plan to release an official analysis of the study.

Jasper Hempel, Western Growers Executive Vice President and General Counsel, made the following statement today:

“On first read, we appreciate the Pacific Institute’s acknowledgment of all that California’s family farmers have done to increase water use efficiency. There are specific proposals within the report that may merit our support, but there are others we find very troubling. We are troubled by the many broad assumptions the report makes about the realities of agricultural commodity supply and demand, the profitability, or lack thereof, of some crops citied in the report and the omission of discussion of the largest segment of developed water use — the environment.

“The State Water Plan has officially characterized the developed water supply as the total of three segments: urban, agricultural and environmental. Simply subtracting the segment of environmental water and then saying that agriculture uses 80 percent of the remainder is deceptive. We believe this labeling methodology has caused legislators, journalists and the general public to think that agriculture is the biggest water user in the state, when in fact, according to Bulletin 160-05 (State Water Plan update of 2005), in a normal year of precipitation (like 2000) the environment uses 48 percent, urban uses 11 percent and agriculture uses 41 percent of the state’s dedicated water supply. We think the time has come for the Pacific Institute, or another scientific organization, to research and publish a report on ‘Environmental Water Use Efficiency in California,’ complete with accurate statistics in line with official state records on the quantities, sources and outcomes of all water that comes from the 82.5 million acre feet of developed water (out of a total of 200 million acre feet annually in a normal year of precipitation). We are all part of the environment — people, homes, farms and wildlife.

“The report also acknowledges the tremendous investment in increased water use efficiencies made by California farmers over the last decade. We appreciate that, but at this moment, in a time of drought and federal court order decreasing Delta water supplies to Central Valley farmers by 30 percent, those very expensive investments ($500 million dollars in the years between 2004 and 2006 alone) today cannot be sustained. Without adequate water supply, the debt on those water efficiency investments cannot be serviced.

“Farmers will continue to increase water use efficiency. It is the right thing to do from a business standpoint as well as an environmental standpoint. But increased water-use efficiency is not a substitute for the needed improvements in water storage or conveyance. This need cannot be disregarded by any well-intentioned desires or dreams that conservation alone will answer California’s water needs for decades to come. “

The Packer Extra - Sept. 8

Here is today's edition of The Packer Extra

This Sept. 8 edition of The Packer Extra sponsored by:

Famous Software
RJO Produce Marketing
Ballantine Produce
Maxco Packaging
YottaMark


Need to catch up on recent news from The Packer? Check out our new Packer News Feed here:

FDA mobile lab running tests in Salinas
SALINAS, Calif. - Food and Drug Administration investigators are in Salinas, using a $4 million mobile lab to test tomatoes, hot peppers, leafy greens and other fresh produce linked to foodborne illness outbreaks during a monthlong examination. Go here for the story.


Input on new FDA GAPs deemed critical
In a move signaling a desire to update 10-year-old industry guidance for good agricultural practices, the Food and Drug Administration is seeking public input on its 1998 version of GAPs for fresh fruits and vegetables. Go here for the story.

Organic supplier adds conventional bananas
Organics Unlimited, a San Diego-based organic fruit supplier, is making a three-year break into the conventional banana category, introducing its line of Fruti Fresh brand bananas in late August. Go here for the story.

Western Growers backs McCain-Palin ticket
Grower-shippers could anticipate a more sympathetic ear at the White House if Sen. John McCain is elected president in November, said Tom Nassif, president and chief executive officer of Western Growers, Irvine, Calif., and a delegate at the Republican National Convention. Go here for the story.

Philly produce terminal to be ready in 2010
With the Sept. 4 groundbreaking for a new Philadelphia terminal market a reality, produce wholesalers say they're ready to see construction begin on a modern produce distribution facility. Go here for the story.

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.

Headline roundup - Aug. 29

Snatched from the Web and the discussion group this morning, a select group of headlines:

Concerns remain as salmonella outbreak ends From the LA Times

"Unquestionably, we're relieved," said Tom Nassif, chief executive of the Irvine-based Western Growers Assn., whose members cultivate about half of the nation's produce. "But we don't want this thing swept under the rug. We still have a lot of people out there hurting."

The industry response is estimated to have cost between $130 million and $250 million, and workers who lost jobs and growers who planted a smaller crop this year will continue to feel the aftershocks.

Several produce executives accused the Food and Drug Administration of running a lengthy, uncertain investigation that shifted suspicion from tomatoes to jalapeno and serrano peppers, shattering consumer confidence.

In struggling Cubas, signs of new opportunities Posted by Big Apple

One of Cuban President Raul Castro’s most dramatic recent announcements was that he would allow private farmers access to up to 100 acres of idle government land.The plan is a shift toward private enterprise in the struggling economy on the socialist island.
At one small roadside farm stand on the outskirts of Havana, crisp bunches of lettuce, green beans and okra are piled on a wooden countertop. What is unique, in this case, is that unlike on larger, state-run farms, these growers get to keep the proceeds from their produce.

Fyffes drops most in 20 years as forecast is cut From Bloomberg

Fyffes Plc fell the most in more than two decades in Dublin trading after the Irish tropical-fruit distributor cut its annual profit forecast because of increases in the cost of fruit and shipping, and a stronger dollar.

Fyffes plunged as much as 37 percent after saying that so- called adjusted earnings before interest and tax will drop to between 12 million euros ($17.7 million) and 15 million euros in 2008, from 17.4 million euros last year. The Dublin-based company said in June that earnings on that basis would grow in ``the mid-teens'' in percentage terms.

The banana distributor, the world's fourth-biggest, said higher average selling prices weren't enough to offset ``substantially'' increased expenses. Shipping fuel costs are about 80 percent higher than at the same stage last year, the company said today in a statement. Rival Chiquita Brands International Inc., owner of the namesake banana trademark, in June forecast a third-quarter loss.

Angola elections bring change to farm sector From Reuters:

But if post-civil war elections in Angola end well, the state-owned land Vilomba is working on could soon be sold to major food producers and the expiration date on his small harvest could equally apply to his own way of life.

U.S.-based Dole Food Co, the world's largest fresh fruit and vegetable producer, and Chiquita Brands International, owner of the namesake banana label, are in talks with local authorities to help recover this valley's once prosperous banana industry.

Freezer sales climb as food prices soar From the AP

Once relegated to the dank corners of the basement, shoppers are re-embracing the deep freezer, stashing bulk-sized purchases of meats, fruits and vegetables there as they work to combat rising food prices.

Across the country, shoppers bought more than 1.1 million freezers during the first six months of the year — up more than 7 percent from the same period last year, according to research firm NPD Group.

That rings up to nearly $400 million in freezer sales — a staggering figure compared to the rest of the home appliance sector, where industry data shows shipments are down nearly 8 percent.

And, experts said, it's a trend that's expected to continue at least through much of next year as penny-pinching shoppers buy in bulk to take advantage of deals or bundle grocery shopping trips to conserve gas.

Immigration - reverse flow

You may have seen the headlines about the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, called Homeward bound: recent immigration enforcement and the decline in the illegal alien population
Here are some highlights from the report;

Among the findings:

• Our best estimate is that the illegal immigrant population has declined by 11 percent through May 2008 after hitting a peak in August 2007.
• The implied decline in the illegal population is 1.3 million since last summer, from 12.5 million to 11.2 million today.
• The estimated decline of the illegal population is at least seven times larger than the number of illegal aliens removed by the government in the last 10 months, so most of the decline is due to illegal immigrants leaving the country on their own.
• One indication that stepped-up enforcement is responsible for the decline is that only the illegal immigrant population seems to be affected; the legal immigrant population continues to grow.
• Another indication enforcement is causing the decline is that the illegal immigrant population began falling before there was a significant rise in their unemployment rate.
• The importance of enforcement is also suggested by the fact that the current decline is already significantly larger than the decline during the last recession, and officially the country has not yet entered a recession.
• While the decline began before unemployment rose, the evidence indicates that unemployment has increased among illegal immigrants, so the economic slow-down is likely to be at least partly responsible for the decline in the number of illegal immigrants.
• There is good evidence that the illegal population grew last summer while Congress was considering legalizing illegal immigrants. When that legislation failed to pass, the illegal population began to fall almost immediately.
• If the decline were sustained, it would reduce the illegal population by one-half in the next five years.

Here is the rest of the story, from the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform:


“IMMIGRATION ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT” – A DISASTER IN SOLUTION’S CLOTHING


Today, the immigration-restrictionist Center for Immigration Studies will unveil a report that contends that the strategy of “attrition through enforcement” is working. The group suggests that 1.3 million unauthorized immigrants have self-deported, and argues that tougher enforcement is working. The claim itself is dubious; more importantly, our nation’s leaders mustn’t lose sight of the true impact of an enforcement-only strategy: if it succeeds, America will lose much of her ability to feed her people.

Are unauthorized immigrants leaving the country? Undoubtedly, the slowing economy is causing shifts in employment patterns. However, such shifts don’t necessarily mean “self-deportation”. Indeed, many agricultural employers across the country report that some experienced workers who left agriculture over the last several years to work inconstruction or other sectors have returned as those sectors (e.g., homebuilding) have shed jobs. Yet, this temporary shift does not solve the growing agricultural labor crisis.


In 2006 and 2007, many producers reported developing labor shortages. In the more serious cases, catastrophic losses resulted – at least one quarter of the pear crop in northern California was lost in 2006; in 2007 one million pounds of asparagus in one western Michigan county went to rot and a North Carolina pickle processor that had to import cucumbers from India when a local supplier scaled back over fears of too few harvest workers.


In 2008, mounting evidence shows that more farmers are making management decisions to plant less, switch to mechanized and subsidized row crops rather than high value fruits and vegetables, and even move production outside the U.S.

As CIS attempts to paint a picture that self-deportation is happening, and offers a solution to fixing America’s broken immigration system, the truly important question is this: if enforcement could actually succeed at purging the American workforce of unauthorized immigrants, what would be the result? In agriculture, the answer is clear. Much of our food production could not be sustained.


The fresh fruit, vegetable, and dairy sectors would be hit the hardest. A majority of the farmworkers planting, harvesting, and tending fruits, vegetables, dairy cows, and other livestock in the U.S. are unauthorized.


In Texas, a recent survey conducted by Texas A&M University reported that 77 percent of grower respondents had taken steps to actively downsize their businesses.

More than one quarter of these American farmers had moved some of their production out of the U.S.

One major melon and onion grower in Pecos County, producing for 20 years on 2200 acres with a $2 million payroll and an additional $2.6 million in economic activity generated in the community, called it quits this year, because of labor.

The largest tomato grower in the northeastern U.S. announcedbefore the planting season started that he could no longer risk producing tomatoes in Pennsylvania due to the lack of legally authorized harvest labor.

A more recent survey of a select group of vegetable producers in California reveals that 80,000 acres of high-value vegetable production have been relocated to Mexico.

The facts are stark. “Attrition through enforcement” means attrition of the American economy. It means job attrition. It means attrition of our nation’s ability to produce our own wholesome and abundant food. It means relying on the world to feed us. “Attrition through enforcement” is no solution. It is a hungry wolf in sheep’s clothing. True solutions are within reach, if Congress musters the courage and the wisdom to act. For agriculture, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Emergency Agriculture Relief Act would provide temporary stability until Congress is able to revisit the issue of full and wise reform of our broken immigration system.


More news coverage:

Report about dwindling information sparks debate

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.

PMA plans COOL Webinar

Clearly, our industry associations have been preparing for the day when the COOL interim final rule was released. Here is news from PMA about an education and outreach event in early August:


New COOL implementing regulations to be introduced
via free PMA/Western Growers Webinar

Newark, Del. – Industry members can learn firsthand how to implement the newly-released country of origin labeling (COOL) interim implementing regulations from representatives of the agency that wrote them during a free Webinar scheduled for Aug. 6. The Webinar will feature an in-depth look at the new regulations from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Administrator Lloyd Day; it is being co-hosted by Produce Marketing Association (PMA) and Western Growers.

Day will present the new regulations – released by USDA July 28 – and explain what companies throughout the supply chain need to do to comply with them. He and other USDA representatives, including Deputy Administrator for Fruit and Vegetable Programs Robert Keeney, will then answer questions from Webinar participants.

“This Webinar will offer industry a first look at the brand new regulations,” said PMA Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs Kathy Means. “We know time is of the essence, because COOL labeling has to be in place by Sept. 30.”

“There has been a lot of anxiety and concerns over false starts in the marketplace, so we are glad to provide this opportunity to go straight to the source to find out exactly what to do,” said Western Growers Executive Vice President Matt McInerney.

The Webinar will be held Aug. 6 at 2 p.m. Eastern/11 a.m. Pacific time. There is no charge to participate, but registration is required. The agenda will feature a lengthy question-and-answer period, to give industry participants plenty of time to have their questions aired and addressed. For additional information and to register, visit: http://www.pma.com/webinar/COOL-2-Webinar.html.

Recording of June 24 COOL best practices Webinar now available
A recording is now available on an earlier Webinar on COOL that was also hosted by the two associations. The June 24 Webinar presented draft COOL best management practices that had been developed by a joint task force whose members represent the entire supply chain. Task force chairs Tom Deardorff of Deardorff Family Farms and Mike O’Brien of Schnuck Markets presented the best practices during the June 24 Webinar. That recording and best management practices can be accessed via PMA’s Web site at http://www.pma.com/issues/labeling.cfm and Western Growers’ Web site at www.wga.com.

The task force will review the new interim implementing regulations to determine whether the best management practices should now be updated.

WG: Traceback is not the problem

Traceback is not the problem says this news release from Western Growers. This may be the critical debate in the upcoming Congressional hearings. If the industry can make a convincing case, lawmakers may give the industry more time to proceed with the industry's own traceability initiative. If not, expect mandates to be imposed sooner rather than later:


PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ ----On June 7, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a consumer alert directing the nation to stop consuming certain types of tomatoes. To this date, the federal agency has not announced an end to the investigation or the source of the contamination. On June 27, the agency admitted that tomatoes may not have been responsible for the outbreak of Salmonella Saintpaul and said instead they "were keeping an open mind" about other commodities being responsible for the outbreak. Spokespersons for the FDA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have cited difficulty tracing product consumed by those who became ill back through the supply chain, and a number of consumer groups have used these statements to dust off their calls for the federal government to require an electronic traceback system.

Disputing these calls are the facts: Yesterday the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that the Minnesota Department of Health had traced the source of their outbreak in less than two weeks. According to the article, Minnesota health officials "were on the phone July 9 with their federal counterparts making it 'crystal clear' it was not tomatoes but jalapenos that were the likely source."

"Traceback is not the issue here," says Western Growers' President and CEO Tom Nassif. "The FDA and CDC initially claimed that tomatoes were the culprit. Now they are focusing on jalapenos. Were they looking in the wrong place? If so, no system of traceback, no matter how sophisticated would have made a difference in this two-month-long investigation." Corroborating this point, in an Associated Press article published today, Dr. David Acheson of the FDA was reported to dispute that an electronic records system would have helped investigators.

"Today there are good traceback laws in place that the produce industry supports and embraces," says Nassif. "Nevertheless, Western Growers supports a risk-based approach to mandatory traceback, designed in collaboration by industry and that meets the needs of regulators. To say that the less-than effective and slow pace of the federal government's investigation is because of traceback problems is way off the mark."

"There is no proof tomatoes were the culprit, but the entire industry is being made to pay the price for this early implication," says Nassif. "The FDA has a moral and legal responsibility to establish a threshold for announcing a commodity is unsafe and an obligation to work with industry to perfect its ability to trace products faster."

Western Growers is an agricultural trade association whose members from Arizona and California grow, pack and ship ninety percent of the fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in California and seventy five percent of those commodities in Arizona. This totals about half of the nation's fresh produce.

SOURCE Western Growers Association

http://www.wga.com
 

Why not?

Western Growers has asked the FDA to lift the tomato advisory. From their release:



Western Growers' President and CEO Tom Nassif sent a letter yesterday to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach urging him to make a strong public announcement that all tomatoes grown in the United States, regardless of variety, are safe to eat.
"Although tomatoes in California were never associated with this outbreak our growers are suffering," wrote Nassif in the letter. "Some have left fruit to rot on the vine. Others have disced their tomatoes into the ground. The market is suppressed and demand is low. Exporters are having great difficulties selling to overseas markets."
Nassif additionally requested that Dr. von Eschenbach and the FDA coordinate and work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agencies to ensure that confidence in US-grown tomatoes in overseas markets is restored.
"It is time for the Food and Drug Administration to make a public statement giving consumers the 'all clear' announcement that tomatoes produced in the U.S. are safe to eat," wrote Nassif. "The urgency of the matter and increasing damages to the industry compel immediate action. The tomatoes currently being harvested and shipped are from states your agency identifies as not being associated with this outbreak."
Western Growers is an agricultural trade association whose members from Arizona and California grow, pack and ship ninety percent of the fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables grown in California and seventy five percent of those commodities in Arizona. This totals about half of the nation's fresh produce.




TK: The FDA doesn't want to be wrong about tomatoes and salmonella, but it hardly seems likely there are any fresh leads associated with tomatoes currently on the market. It was time to lift the irrelevant advisory weeks ago, and past time now.

A Parallel 'What-If' Universe

While it's an admirable campaign for the Western Growers Association (www.wga.com) to be calling for a Congressional committee to investigate finding federal funds to compensate growers for their massive losses during the FDA witch hunt, they may be biting off more than they can chew.

At least they're trying, though. I don't see the 'commingled' (isn't that a nice catchword now?) United/Produce Marketing Association doing much if anything to pressure Washington to at least consider the issue, when it appears they have ample political connections to do so.

But back to WGA's efforts. The question begs, where does one draw the line as far as the parameters & timeframe in quantifying a loss? Absolutely, the Palmetto/Ruskin (FL) shippers, the ones with unsold loads in their packinghouses, more in transit, and even more at destination when the initial CDC/FDA reports were released on June 6-7, deserve the first restitution if offered. They're ground zero from that standpoint.

Let's creep a few days forward, then. By the end of the next week, the media blast furnace was cranking, the FDA was chasing shadows, and the new deals in Charleston (SC), Quincy (FL) & Arkansas were picking & packing to a stagnant market. Not declining. Not falling. Morto. No movement whatsoever, to the point that the AgPlus Network, in their National Tomato Review, couldn't even peg an F.O.B. market for a day or two because of lack of trading.

Arguments will be made that these shippers, as well as the central San Joaquin Valley (CA) boys that began the following week, were hurt badly as well because their respective deals opened up in the pricing doldrums, where they remain to date. And they could be right in their claims.

Proving it, however, could be a dicey proposition, especially with the introduction of the ever-popular 'what if'. An example would be, what if...the flow of movement was not disrupted by this advisory, and it was business as usual? Of course, the market would have been better, but by how much? A couple bucks per package? Three or four? Who knows...

On the other hand, how many Palmetto/Ruskin sheds would have kept on packing, right on top of South Carolina & Quincy? We did have a $14-16.00 FOB market on our hands, and no grower in his right mind likes to leave valuable product in the field. The only offsetting factor would have been weather, the annual daily afternoon rains in the June Tampa heat that traditionally end a nearly-finished crop.

All in all, though, I give the WGA an 'A' for their efforts.

Later,

Jay