Digging Through The Details

By |

In preparation for this issue, our editorial team dug into the meaning of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). As with any legislation that passes Congress and is signed by the President, it is only the beginning. Before the law will have legs to stand on, rulemaking must take place. This is where we often hear the saying the “devil’s in the details.” The broad language of legislation can be twisted for good or bad in the rulemaking process. While this is a process that has yet to happen, a number of items became clear to me in gathering information for this special issue.

Food Safety Is Everyone’s Responsibility. There’s been a lot of debate about small growers being exempted from the FSMA. While some smaller growers cheered the exemption given under the Tester Amendment, it might not be the panacea they first thought. There are several stipulations to the rule that will make some small growers accountable to the FSMA. Growers cannot sell through distributors and be exempt and sales must be within a 275-mile radius. If FDA suspects a small farm is the source of a problem, the exemption will be withdrawn. And, the list goes on.

Some people say this exemption could even be viewed as a negative stigma by buyers. The very fact the grower is exempt from food safety rules might be interpreted that his or her produce could be suspect.

Up Front Cooperation From FDA. Growers — large and small — are unified in the fact there is plenty of government regulation in today’s environment. So, here we go with another round of rules under the FSMA. That has to give one pause, but I am hearing optimism from some quarters FDA has learned hard lessons from past foodborne illness outbreaks. FDA has been much more proactive in outreach to growers and industry in developing new rules. Lest we forget, the agency already has been developing a produce food safety rule over the past couple of years that would have gone into place, FSMA or not. In this process, I am told FDA officials have employed a much more collaborative spirit in rulemaking. Let’s hope that this will continue as the FSMA is developed.

We Must Harmonize. You can find the biggest area of agreement from the grower community in the desire to harmonize food safety audits. Many growers face multiple audits to satisfy buyers. These inspections are duplicative and very expensive to growers. For years, growers have pushed for a single standard for food safety that takes into account particular concerns for different crops. If constructed well, the FSMA could be a stepping stone in this direction. It is long overdue.

How Do We Pay For It? With a $14 trillion federal deficit hanging over heads, the American public elected budget hawks and sent them to Washington, DC in November. The FSMA comes with an estimated $1.4 billion price tag over five years. While that seems like small potatoes compared to $14 trillion, there is simply no money to pay for this program without deficit spending unless big cuts are made somewhere else. This law demands more inspectors and inspections, both for domestic produce and imported, to give it real teeth. The FSMA gives no guidance on how to pay for these new inspectors. It is easy to sign a law, but I guess the devil’s in the details.

Giles is editor of Florida Grower, a Meister Media Worldwide publication.

Leave a Reply

2 comments on “Digging Through The Details

  1. Anonymous

    If you want to depend solely on corporate farms for your foods, then this law should be enforced at all levels. But if you want to be able to go to your local farmer’s market and buy ripe tomatoes or strawberries or fresh lettuce from the person that picked it just yesterday, you might want to let the smaller guys off the hook on this one.

    The people who sell to the end consumer already have lots of built-in controls that corporate farms don’t have. To create an unfair competition between small and large farms will create more of a problem not solve it. I personally believe that if they are selling within a “local” area that should still be considered exempt. As for distributers, that may need quantifying. I sell a few hundred # worth of pickling cukes to a local produce stand – hardly worth regulating, but if my produce were being shipped to a major market or sold in large quantities to restaurants, that might need consideration.

    One of the sad statistics in farming is that there have been less “new” farmers, and the age of the average farmer has increased every year for some time now. The price of land and farming equipment makes “breaking into” farming an almost impossible feat. To regulate smaller farms to death only exacerbates this problem, and feeds the corporate farm atmoshpere.

  2. Anonymous

    If you want to depend solely on corporate farms for your foods, then this law should be enforced at all levels. But if you want to be able to go to your local farmer’s market and buy ripe tomatoes or strawberries or fresh lettuce from the person that picked it just yesterday, you might want to let the smaller guys off the hook on this one.

    The people who sell to the end consumer already have lots of built-in controls that corporate farms don’t have. To create an unfair competition between small and large farms will create more of a problem not solve it. I personally believe that if they are selling within a “local” area that should still be considered exempt. As for distributers, that may need quantifying. I sell a few hundred # worth of pickling cukes to a local produce stand – hardly worth regulating, but if my produce were being shipped to a major market or sold in large quantities to restaurants, that might need consideration.

    One of the sad statistics in farming is that there have been less “new” farmers, and the age of the average farmer has increased every year for some time now. The price of land and farming equipment makes “breaking into” farming an almost impossible feat. To regulate smaller farms to death only exacerbates this problem, and feeds the corporate farm atmoshpere.