Food Safety: A Fair Apples To Apples Comparison?
March 6, 2013 If you read through FDA’s proposed Produce Safety Rule, you’ll realize that most tree fruits are included in the rule, despite the fact that they are grown high above ground level, and there have been no documented cases of foodborne pathogen outbreaks associated with them. As you can imagine, this has several leaders in the tree fruit industry weighing in during the current 120-day comment period.
We asked representatives from the California Grape and Tree Fruit League and the U.S. Apple Association what they are telling their members who may be asking what the proposed rules really mean for them. Here’s what they had to say.
Barry Bedwell, president, California Grape and Tree Fruit League:
“We are, as expected, getting numerous inquiries from members about what the proposed rules really mean. Here is what we are telling them now:
1) Be concerned and involved, but there is no need to panic. There is a 120-day comment period from the time the proposed regulations were released (January 4). That means we all need to thoughtfully read the proposed regulations and be prepared to respond by May 16 where we feel the requirements may not make sense, as well as where they may make sense. After all, we all concur with the basic premise to make our food supply as safe as possible. FDA is proposing that the effective date of the regulations would be 60 days after a final rule is published. That may take us well into 2014.
2) The foundation of these proposed regulations is to establish a science-based minimum standard for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce on farms and looks specifically at how ag water is used; how animal based soil amendments may contain pathogens; personal health and hygiene issues; how domestic and wild animals may introduce pathogens; and finally, setting standards for equipment, tools, and buildings used in produce operations. These are indeed reasonable goals, but we must confirm as representatives of permanent fruit crops that are not grown in contact with the soil that the proposed requirements are indeed warranted for our particular commodities. For example, how consistent should the requirement for water testing really be when looking at the differences between, say, leafy greens and plums? Why shouldn’t there be more of a risk-based approach based upon a commodity’s history with specific pathogens like they do in Europe?
3) In the final analysis, the status quo is no longer acceptable in the eyes of consumers, so our growers need to be prepared to manage some change and corresponding costs, regardless of how the rule may finally manifest itself. The reality is that while there are seemingly numerous unfair and unwise exemptions from this proposed rule, the majority of growers will find new mandates to fill even though they may currently be doing most, if not all, of the proposed requirements. Our job as an association is to help ensure that the final requirements are truly warranted and as cost effective as possible. And that is exactly what we plan to do.”
Mark Seetin, director, regulatory and industry affairs, U.S. Apple Association:
“I have been analyzing the rule proposals from the standpoint of their impact on the U.S. apple industry. The proposals are very broadly based, covering virtually all aspects of apple production. After going over the rules, I put together for our members a 1-page “rule and discussion shortcut reference” that briefly describes the topic of the rule, its page in the 547-page document, and the pages where FDA’s “preamble” discussion describes (somewhat) their thinking in coming up with the rule. (Editor’s Note: Seetin has highlighted the areas in the document that relate to apples for his own use; “it should help you get to the salient parts of the rule proposal without having to read the whole thing.”)
The FDA decided to include virtually all tree fruit and nuts under the rule, even though we all had argued that because there are no documented cases of foodborne pathogen outbreaks associated with apples, and the nature of their production significantly above ground level, that apples were certainly not a ‘high-risk’ produce crop that Congress envisioned when crafting the legislation. In the preamble (pages 85-90, 92, and 122 of the rule) the agency (In my humble opinion) departs from a science-based and risk-based analysis by saying ‘ …we have tentatively concluded that limiting the scope of this rule based on outbreak data or on the levels of frequency of pathogen detection alone would not adequately address the risk of serious adverse health consequences or death. Therefore, as discussed in section V.A.2.a. of this document, we are proposing to cover apples, citrus fruits, watermelons, and tree nuts in this proposed rule.’ While they note no incidents have occurred with apples, they appear to slip into the precautionary principle thought process by simply todding everything into the rules application.
Of all the many areas the rule covers, I believe the ‘Agricultural Water’ portions are by far the most significant. For apple growers, the exemption that is given to crops that are furrow or drip irrigated goes away when water used for crop protection chemical sprays fall under the rule. It does not matter that a grower irrigates by drip of furrow, he is drawn into the rules with the water used for spraying.
The Cost/Benefit analysis of the rule is not exhaustive — borne out by how briefly it is discussed in the preamble — but I believe that FDA has seriously underestimated the cost-per-farm impact of the rules. We are attempting to gather some ‘ground truth’ estimates from our growers to see what they believe it will cost to comply.”
Subscribe Today For
