Opinion: Getting Squeezed By Regulations

It’s tough enough these days for growers to follow all the dictates of buyers on food safety procedures without worrying about running afoul of environmental regulations. But that’s exactly what’s happening to growers in “America’s Salad Bowl,” Salinas, CA. While these growers farm vegetables, I think there are some lessons here for all growers. Many ideas, whether manifested as cultural phenomena or governmental regulations, have a way of popping up in the Golden State and then making their way across the country. In other words, this problem may be coming to an orchard or vineyard near you.

What’s happening to growers on California’s Central Coast is that produce buyers have become extremely concerned about such issues as non-crop vegetation surrounding growers’ fields. The buyers fear the vegetation, among other things, could harbor wildlife, and the droppings from that wildlife could contain E. coli. In the wake of the 2006 E. coli outbreak that killed three people, they don’t want to take any chances. They are going so far as rejecting crops from growers, according to an eye-opening research report in the latest edition of a University of California publication, California Agriculture. One grower, for example, lost $17,500 worth of crop because a food safety audit found deer tracks near his field.

Leaving aside the question of whether wildlife carries E. coli — it’s normally associated with domesticated animals such as livestock — growers are being urged to take all sorts of questionable actions. One halted harvest due to the presence of tadpoles in an adjacent creek. The authors of the report surveyed growers in the region, and of the 181 growers who responded to the survey, nearly 40% said that food safety auditors had “suggested” that the growers remove wildlife. In response, more than half the growers said they are putting out poisoned bait.

Law Breaking Suggested?

What’s really making it tough for growers, however, is that 19% said that auditors had “suggested” they remove non-crop vegetation. The problem with that is many growers have actively promoted such vegetation in recent years in response to water quality regulations. Since 2003, when the 20-year-old state Agricultural Waiver of Nonpoint Source Discharge ended, growers are no longer exempt from water quality laws. Growers have taken such actions as planting cover crops and enhancing existing habitat because surrounding vegetation acts as a filter to improve water quality.

Growers, understandably, feel like they’ve been caught between a rock and a hard place. More than 30% took the time to share their opinions on the survey, an extraordinarily high percentage. Said one: “Our experience has been that the food safety auditors have been very strict about any vegetation that might provide habitat. We are very concerned about upsetting the natural balance, but we have to comply with our shipper’s requests.” Said another: “I am afraid many positive environmental programs and practices are going to be abandoned due to retailers’/shippers’ new food safety practices. I am all for the environment and safe food, but feel many new food safety ideas are being driven by fear and uncertainty rather than sound science.”

The report’s authors, Melanie Beretti, the program director for the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County, and Diana Stuart, a University of California Ph.D. candidate, note that keeping produce safe is obviously critical. But the means to achieve that goal have to be carefully evaluated to make sure they actually do reduce the risk of crop contamination, and that they don’t lead to environmental degradation. Finally, it wouldn’t hurt if these food safety measures were cost-effective and practical to implement, either.