|
Other Points of view July 16
Other Points of view July 16 HR2749
Mentions SF CHronicle Artilce that impressed me
Date: 7/17/2009 12:19:15 PM ( 15 y ) ... viewed 1575 times
This is the article,
in the SF CRONICLE
that this refers to:
SF CRONICLE REPORTS THE STORY I REFERENCED ABOVE:
Crops, ponds destroyed in quest for food safety
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, July 13, 2009
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/13/MN0218DVJ8.DTL...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/13/MN0218DVJ8.DTL
Testimony of Robert G. Reinhard
On behalf of the
National Turkey Federation
Committee on Agriculture
Review of Current Issues in Food Safety
7
Despite the fact that the Energy and Commerce Committee has made changes to address
legitimate concerns, the Internet and some print media are full of specious charges
against the bill. It is clear the legislation has become a target for people who are angry
and frustrated about a multitude of other problems that would not be affected by the law.
8
For example, on Monday, July 13, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a long article
charging that farmers are being forced to dismantle important conservation practices and
destroy wildlife habitat. The article was passionate, but not accurate, in suggesting that
H.R. 2749 is responsible for these changes. H.R. 2749, of course, has not passed
Congress and is not in effect. Moreover, provisions of H.R. 2749 protect against the
gross actions described in the article. The bill requires the FDA, if it promulgates produce
safety regulations, to use science based standards that take into account the impact the
regulations would have on small-scale and diversified farms, wildlife habitat,
conservation practices, watershed protection efforts, and organic production methods.
The problems cited by the Chronicle reporter and the people she interviewed arise from
private, not government, actions. Private customers—food processors and
supermarkets—have imposed contractual requirements on their suppliers to create sterile
borders. If the farmer wants to sell to the companies, he has to meet his customer’s
requirements. Private contractual requirements do not have to be science-based or
consider environmental impact.
Some who oppose efforts to improve food safety law have larger concerns about the
global and industrial nature of our current food system. The IBM survey shows that
people increasingly want to know where their food comes from. Other polls indicate
people would like to buy locally produced food. That yearning is reaching levels that
may require Congress to address these more basic issues.
However, it has taken many years for the current system to build to this point. The
changes that many seek would alter farming and food processing completely. That kind
of change is not likely to come quickly or easily. Today we have a global food system
and most of us, now and for the foreseeable future, will continue to purchase at least
some mass produced food from enormous corporations at major supermarkets, many of
them owned by foreign corporations. The immediate need, therefore, is for Congress to
take steps to make our existing food supply safe. This requires giving the FDA the
authority and the resources to address the problems created by a modern, mass
production, international food system.
The need is now and the need is urgent. While we are sympathetic to the concerns of
those in the food industry who may indeed have to make some changes in the way they
do business, it is clear that H.R. 2749 has been structured to assure it does not place an
undue burden on small farms or businesses. On behalf of the families here today and all
the others who have suffered because of an outmoded food safety law that has failed to
protect American consumers, we suggest that a reasonable and appropriate balancing of
interests has been worked out in H.R. 2749.
The time has come for Congress to act responsibly, consider the interests of those who
consume food as well as those who produce and process it, and pass the Food Safety
Enhancement Act promptly.
# # # # #
http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h071609/Reinhard.pdf
SF CHRONICLE
ARTICLE
(07-13) 04:00 PDT Washington -- Dick Peixoto planted hedges of fennel and flowering cilantro around his organic vegetable fields in the Pajaro Valley near Watsonville to harbor beneficial insects, an alternative to pesticides.
IMAGES
View More Images
MORE NEWS
Unemployment rate remains at 11.6 percent for June 07.17.09
Death of Shell refinery worker an accident 07.17.09
Family mourning a relative gets robbed 07.17.09
He has since ripped out such plants in the name of food safety, because his big customers demand sterile buffers around his crops. No vegetation. No water. No wildlife of any kind.
"I was driving by a field where a squirrel fed off the end of the field, and so 30 feet in we had to destroy the crop," he said. "On one field where a deer walked through, didn't eat anything, just walked through and you could see the tracks, we had to take out 30 feet on each side of the tracks and annihilate the crop."
In the verdant farmland surrounding Monterey Bay, a national marine sanctuary and one of the world's biological jewels, scorched-earth strategies are being imposed on hundreds of thousands of acres in the quest for an antiseptic field of greens. And the scheme is about to go national.
Invisible to a public that sees only the headlines of the latest food-safety scare - spinach, peppers and now cookie dough - ponds are being poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared. Fences and poison baits line wildlife corridors. Birds, frogs, mice and deer - and anything that shelters them - are caught in a raging battle in the Salinas Valley against E. coli O157:H7, a lethal, food-borne bacteria.
In pending legislation and in proposed federal regulations, the push for food safety butts up against the movement toward biologically diverse farming methods, while evidence suggests that industrial agriculture may be the bigger culprit.
'Foolhardy' approach
"Sanitizing American agriculture, aside from being impossible, is foolhardy," said UC Berkeley food guru Michael Pollan, who most recently made his case for smaller-scale farming in the documentary film "Food, Inc." "You have to think about what's the logical end point of looking at food this way. It's food grown indoors hydroponically."
Scientists do not know how the killer E. coli pathogen, which dwells mainly in the guts of cattle, made its way to a spinach field near San Juan Bautista (San Benito County) in 2006, leaving four people dead, 35 with acute kidney failure and 103 hospitalized.
The deadly bug first appeared in hamburger meat in the early 1980s and migrated to certain kinds of produce, mainly lettuce and other leafy greens that are cut, mixed and bagged for the convenience of supermarket shoppers. Hundreds of thousands of the bug can fit on the head of a pin; as few as 10 can lodge in a salad and end in lifelong disability, including organ failure.
Going national
For many giant food retailers, the choice between a dead pond and a dead child is no choice at all. Industry has paid more than $100 million in court settlements and verdicts in spinach and lettuce lawsuits, a fraction of the lost sales involved.
Galvanized by the spinach disaster, large growers instituted a quasi-governmental program of new protocols for growing greens safely, called the "leafy greens marketing agreement." A proposal was submitted last month in Washington to take these rules nationwide.
A food safety bill sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, passed this month in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It would give new powers to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate all farms and produce in an attempt to fix the problem. The bill would require consideration of farm diversity and environmental rules, but would leave much to the FDA.
An Amish farmer in Ohio who uses horses to plow his fields could find himself caught in a net aimed 2,000 miles away at a feral pig in San Benito County. While he may pick, pack and sell his greens in one day because he does not refrigerate, the bagged lettuce trucked from Salinas with a 17-day shelf life may be considered safer.
The leafy-green agreement is based on available science, but it is just a jumping-off point.
Large produce buyers have compiled secret "super metrics" that go much further. Farmers must follow them if they expect to sell their crops. These can include vast bare-dirt buffers, elimination of wildlife, and strict rules on water sources. To enforce these rules, retail buyers have sent forth armies of food-safety auditors, many of them trained in indoor processing plants, to inspect fields.
Keeping children out
"They're used to working inside the factory walls," said Ken Kimes, owner of New Natives farms in Aptos (Santa Cruz County) and a board member of the Community Alliance With Family Farmers, a California group. "If they're not prepared for the farm landscape, it can come as quite a shock to them. Some of this stuff that they want, you just can't actually do."
Auditors have told Kimes that no children younger than 5 can be allowed on his farm for fear of diapers. He has been asked to issue identification badges to all visitors.
Not only do the rules conflict with organic and environmental standards; many are simply unscientific. Surprisingly little is known about how E. coli is transmitted from cow to table.
Reducing E. coli
Scientists have created a vaccine to reduce E. coli in livestock, and a White House working group announced plans Tuesday to boost safety standards for eggs and meat. This month, the group is expected to issue draft guidelines for reducing E. coli contamination in leafy greens, tomatoes and melons.
Some science suggests that removing vegetation near field crops could make food less safe. Vegetation and wetlands are a landscape's lungs and kidneys, filtering out not just fertilizers, sediments and pesticides, but also pathogens. UC Davis scientists found that vegetation buffers can remove as much as 98 percent of E. coli from surface water. UC Davis advisers warn that some rodents prefer cleared areas.
Produce buyers compete to demand the most draconian standards, said Jo Ann Baumgartner, head of the Wild Farm Alliance in Watsonville, so that they can sell their products as the "safest."
State agencies responsible for California's water, air and wildlife have been unable to find out from buyers what they are demanding.
They do know that trees have been bulldozed along the riparian corridors of the Salinas Valley, while poison-filled tubes targeting rodents dot lettuce fields. Dying rodents have led to deaths of owls and hawks that naturally control rodents.
Unscientific approach
"It's all based on panic and fear, and the science is not there," said Dr. Andy Gordus, an environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Game.
Preliminary results released in April from a two-year study by the state wildlife agency, UC Davis and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that less than one-half of 1 percent of 866 wild animals tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 in Central California.
Frogs are unrelated to E. coli, but their remains in bags of mechanically harvested greens are unsightly, Gordus said, so "the industry has been using food safety as a premise to eliminate frogs."
Farmers are told that ponds used to recycle irrigation water are unsafe. So they bulldoze the ponds and pump more groundwater, opening more of the aquifer to saltwater intrusion, said Jill Wilson, an environmental scientist at the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in San Luis Obispo.
Wilson said demands for 450-foot dirt buffers remove the agency's chief means of preventing pollution from entering streams and rivers. Jovita Pajarillo, associate director of the water division in the San Francisco office of the Environmental Protection Agency, said removal of vegetative buffers threatens Arroyo Seco, one of the last remaining stretches of habitat for steelhead trout.
Turning down clients
"It's been a problem for us trying to balance the organic growing methods with the food safety requirements," Peixoto said. "At some point, we can't really meet their criteria. We just tell them that's all we can do, and we have to turn down that customer."
Large retailers did not respond to requests for comment. Food trade groups in Washington suggested calling other trade groups, which didn't comment.
Chiquita/Fresh Express, a large Salinas produce handler, told the advocacy group Food and Water Watch that the company has "developed extensive additional guidelines for the procurement of leafy greens and other produce, but we consider such guidelines to be our confidential and proprietary information."
Seattle trial lawyer Bill Marler, who represented many of the plaintiffs in the 2006 E. coli outbreak in spinach, said, "If we want to have bagged spinach and lettuce available 24/7, 12 months of the year, it comes with costs."
Still, he said, the industry rules won't stop lawsuits or eliminate the risk of processed greens cut in fields, mingled in large baths, put in bags that must be chilled from packing plant to kitchen, and shipped thousands of miles away.
"In 16 years of handling nearly every major food-borne illness outbreak in America, I can tell you I've never had a case where it's been linked to a farmers' market," Marler said.
"Could it happen? Absolutely. But the big problem has been the mass-produced product. What you're seeing is this rub between trying to make it as clean as possible so they don't poison anybody, but still not wanting to come to the reality that it may be the industrialized process that's making it all so risky."
Some major recent outbreaks of food-borne illness
The Food and Drug Administration lists 40 food-borne pathogens. Among the more common: E-coli O157:H7, salmonella, listeria, campylobacter, botulism and hepatitis A.
June 2009: E. coli O157:H7 found in Nestle Toll House refrigerated cookie dough manufactured in Danville, Va., resulted in the recall of 3.6 million packages. Seventy-two people in 30 states were sickened. No traces found on equipment or workers; investigators are looking at flour and other ingredients.
October 2008: Salmonella found in peanut butter from a Peanut Corp. of America plant in Georgia. Nine people died, and an estimated 22,500 were sickened. Criminal negligence was alleged after the product tested positive and was shipped.
June 2008: Salmonella Saintpaul traced to serrano peppers grown in Mexico. More than 1,000 people were sickened in 41 states, with 203 reported hospitalizations and at least one death. Tomatoes were suspected, devastating growers.
April 2007: E. coli O157:H7 found in beef, sickening 14 people. United Food Group recalled 5.7 million pounds of meat.
December 2006: E. coli O157:H7 traced to Taco Bell restaurants in New Jersey and Long Island, N.Y. Green onions suspected, then lettuce. Thirty-nine people were sickened, some with acute kidney failure.
September 2006: E. coli O157:H7 found in Dole bagged spinach processed at Earthbound Farms in San Juan Bautista (San Benito County). The outbreak killed four people, sent 103 to hospitals, and devastated the spinach industry.
E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/13/MN0218DVJ8.DTL...
FULL ARTICLE
REFERENCE TO THE
GREEN LEAFY
CALIFORNIA FOOD SAFETY GUIDELINES DO NOT SOLVE E. COLI
PROBLEM
BIG AGRICULTURE “SOLUTION” COULD HURT FAMILY FARMERS
AND THREATEN ACCESS TO LOCAL LEAFY GREENS
DAVIS, Calif. (September 5, 2007)—Food safety guidelines proposed by the California produce
industry will not protect the public health or solve the state’s E. coli problem, and could destroy
the state’s internationally-heralded family farm economy.
Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (LGMA) guidelines
http://www.caff.org/media/pr.shtml
The industry-sponsored Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (LGMA) guidelines were recently
developed in reaction to the tragic 2006 bagged salad E. coli 0157:H7 outbreaks, which resulted
in more than 350 illnesses and three deaths. The LGMA guidelines are written by and for large
growers in the industry, even though these practices were already in place on most large farms
that grow for the processed, bagged salad industry. While more than 95 percent of growers are
currently encompassed by LGMA, critics have urged refocusing on the most probable source of
E. coli contamination: processing.
CAFF proposes a multi-tiered scientifically-based approach to address food safety, including
increased university research on appropriate food safety measures for all sizes of farms and
public testing for pathogenic E. coli 0157 in the state’s surface water.
“Industrial food companies have an uncanny way of creating problems and then proposing
solutions that only industrial food companies are capable of implementing,” said Tom Willey,
owner of T&D Willey Farms in Madera, CA. “If family-scale farmers try to swallow the burdens
imposed by the industry guidelines, it will doom us.”
# # #
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
(htt://www.caff.org) is a statewide non-profit whose
membership includes family farmers and urban residents, working to build a movement of rural
and urban people to foster family-scale agriculture that cares for the land, sustains local
economies and promotes social justice. Growers Collaborative LLC
(www.growerscollaborative.org), is wholly owned by CAFF, and part of CAFF’s Community Food
Systems program.
COMMUNITY ALLIANCE WIHT FAMILY FARMERS
POSITION:
http://www.caff.org/policy/foodsafetyfederal.shtml
Testimony of Robert G. Reinhard
On behalf of the
National Turkey Federation
Committee on Agriculture
Review of Current Issues in Food Safety
July 16, 2009
Good morning Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Lucas, and members of the House
Agriculture Committee. My name is Bob Reinhard and I am the Director of Food Safety and
Regulatory Affairs for Sara Lee Corporation. Today I will be testifying on behalf of the National
Turkey Federation, as Co-Chairman of the federation’s Technical and Regulatory Committee,
which oversees all scientific and technical food safety activities for the federation. The National
Turkey Federation is a non-profit, U.S. trade association located in Washington, D.C.,
representing the entire turkey industry, including local farmers, processors, marketers, retailers
and industry allied services. Currently, NTF represents nearly 100 percent of the U.S. turkey
industry and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide comments today.
The U.S. turkey industry raises more than 260 million turkeys, which after processing
represents approximately 6 billion pounds of safe, wholesome, nutritious protein products for
domestic and international consumers. Food safety is NTF’s number-one priority and federation
members’ future success is directly linked to customer confidence in the safety of the food
supply and turkey products. Since the inception of the National Turkey Federation in 1940,
science-based food safety has been an industry priority and over the years the membership has
agreed food safety is an issue on which they would cooperate, share best practices, and
developing science-based, state-of-the-art food safety interventions from the farm to the
consumer.
Federal inspection of turkey and other meat and poultry products by the USDA Food
Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) has undergone major changes in the last 13 years, and the
collaborative efforts of industry and FSIS have resulted in some major accomplishments related
to food safety and pathogen reduction. Both the government and industry have shown they are
capable of implementing scientific food safety programs and that a modern, science-based
inspection system within the framework of the existing inspection statutes can be effective.
However, work remains to be done on all sides, as we will discuss momentarily, and there should
be a role for Congress to play in this process. Yet, we believe that the mindset and commitment
that has been established by both the regulators and the regulated has created a foundation for the
continuing improvement of the meat and poultry inspection.
Going back more than a decade, it was a coalition from the food industry that included
the National Turkey Federation, which petitioned the USDA’s FSIS for a preventive, science-
based food safety system and in 1996 FSIS promulgated the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements. With this “HACCP rule,” which was
implemented by industry in 1998, certain naturally occurring pathogens in raw meat and poultry
products were identified as potential food safety hazards and if those hazards were likely to
occur, process controls to eliminate or control those hazards were implemented at the production
facility. Further, a processing establishment was also required to have programs for ensuring
they maintain the highest sanitary conditions in their facility, known as Sanitation Standard
Operating Procedures (SSOPs). We feel these programs have been highly successful, but again
recognize that further progress is and can be accomplished.
On March 14, 2009, President Obama announced the creation of a Food Safety Working
Group (FSWG) to focus on food safety based on the need to improve the existing food safety
systems. The FSWG is chaired by the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human
Services and the Department of Agriculture. The purpose of the FSWG is to provide information
to the President on how the food safety system can be modified for the 21st century, assist in
fostering coordination on food safety issues throughout all of government, and to work to ensure
that existing food safety laws are enforced.
In the last week, the FSWG announced several new initiatives, founded on three core principles:
prevention, strengthening surveillance, and improving response and recovery.
Examples fostering these principals, which were shared by the Secretaries included:
• Preventing harm to consumers;
• Food safety inspection and enforcement dependent on data and analysis; and
• Outbreaks identified quickly and stopped.
Industry supports and believes in these same principles. The use of scientific data analysis is
particularly critical in making informed decision towards the improvement of our public health
system. To that end, the agencies need to continue to strive to have more specific information on
attribution, as well as work together to share data, not only with each other but more broadly
with the regulated industry and with other interested parties.
The industry is confident and optimistic that the White House FSWG, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will continue to take a leadership
and preventive role on food safety issues and work to break down barriers in working across
different government agencies. The FSWG should monitor implementation of their
recommendations, as well as ensure coordination of food safety policies between the different
parties overseeing the implementation of recommended measures.
At this point, it is very important to note, HACCP and SSOPs have yielded significant
and measurable successes, as shown by USDA FSIS pathogen testing data. Specifically, on an
annual basis, the Office of Public Health and Science analyzes more than 125,000 products and
conducts more than 650,000 combined analyses on these meat and poultry products and in the
processing environment in federally inspected establishment. These FSIS analyses include
testing for chemical and biological food safety hazards, including pathogens of public health
concern like Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella. Using this scientific quantitative data as
a benchmark, since turn of the century (2000 to 2007) we have seen a 74 percent reduction in the
incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products. Additionally,
since an initial baseline study by FSIS in 1996 on Salmonella prevalence on raw turkey
carcasses, we have seen a 64 percent reduction in this pathogen’s presence. However, we need
better attribution data to confirm what our best instincts tell us – that these food safety
improvements have a correlation to the decline in foodborne illness. The development of
attribution information will be of critical importance as we continue to make improvements in
food safety.
We share this information to show that we are not in need of re-building a system, but in
need of enhancing a system that is already working. Everyone wants to do better, but we need to
build on our successes and use data with attribution information to drive the changes that will
lead to improvements in public health.
Modernization
HACCP is a science-based proven food safety system that has enhanced the safety of the
meat and poultry products produced in the United States. And since initial implementation in
1998, there have been ongoing efforts to improve the way regulatory oversight is executed and
how a processing establishment performance is measured. During HACCP’s implementation
period in 1998, FSIS hosted numerous public meetings across the country and provided countless
supporting documents to assist the regulated entities in achieving compliance with the new
requirements. The process was phased-in based on plant size, with specific focus on small and
very small establishments. Today, all federally inspected meat and poultry establishments have
implemented a hazard analysis and preventive control system.
We bring this up to only caution that any such changes to the existing laws and
regulations should be done carefully and all due diligence should be exercised. Any changes to
the existing statue should be done with a scalpel, not an axe, to ensure that the current level of
inspection is not compromised.
When the current food safety statutes were passed, no one envisioned HACCP, yet the
law proved flexible enough to accommodate it. As science and technology improves, it is highly
plausible that the food safety inspection process would and should be improved as well.
Changes to FSIS and FDA statutory authority should not be so prescriptive that they stifle
innovation and prevent industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary of Health and
Human Services from making science-based improvements with definable public health
outcomes that are deemed appropriate. Currently, as reiterated by the White House FSWG, FSIS
has embarked on further refining its inspection process using science, risk and other appropriate
data. The agency has been moving to utilize public health risk in determining how to best utilize
their inspection resources. In today’s economic environment, it is prudent that the government
and industry focus more of their limited resources toward processes to prevent food safety
concerns and that we focus specifically on interventions that have a measurable outcome related
to public health. This clearly is the way of the future. FSIS’ efforts offer instructive lessons for
anyone interested in food safety. All food safety systems should be designed to manage and
reduce risk to the food supply. Congress may want to consider giving FSIS expanded authority
to allocate inspection resources according to risk so that inspectors are focused most closely on
those tasks that will have the biggest impact on food safety. For example, federally inspected
establishments could be allowed to share bird-by-bird inspection duties in a joint effort, working
with and under the close supervision of FSIS employees to assure the safety of poultry caresses.
Such a system would permit inspection resources to be shifted to inspection processes that have a
higher risk related to food safety and a measurable public health outcome.
Current Legislation
Given the nature of this hearing, it would not be appropriate to close without discussing
H.R. 2749, the “Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009” recently passed by the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
One thing of note is the exemption in Section 5 regarding products that are inspected
under the Meat and Poultry Inspection Acts and the farms raising these products. We applaud
these exemptions and the efforts of Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Barton and the entire
Energy and Commerce Committee to include this exemption, and we would encourage Congress
to preserve and, if appropriate, strengthen the exemption as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
The opportunity for Congress to pass significant food safety legislation rarely comes
along. It is NTF’s position that with an opportunity like what is presented; legislation should
give USDA and FDA additional tools to collaborate with industry, consumers, academia and all
other stakeholders to prevent food safety problems from occurring in the first place. Before
adding new regulations, we strongly encourage this Committee and all Members of Congress
consider whether legislation provides measurable public health outcomes.
In closing, it should be reiterated that the U.S. meat and poultry supply is one of the
safest in the world. However, the turkey industry recognizes changes could and should be made
to further enhance confidence in the consuming public. As the food safety reform debate moves
to the forefront of the congressional agenda, any changes that are enacted should ensure
demonstrable improvements in food safety and that a measurable public health outcome is
achieved.
Mr. Chairman and other members of the committee, again, let me thank you for allowing
the National Turkey Federation the opportunity to provide this testimony today. The number one
goal of the U.S. turkey industry is to provide safe, wholesome, nutritious, quality products at an
affordable cost to our customers. Thank you very much and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
