Bridging the GAPs: Strategies to Improve Produce Safety, Preserve Farm Diversity and Strengthen Local Food Systems

8/14/2019 Bridging the GAPs: Strategies to Improve Produce Safety, Preserve Farm Diversity and Strengthen Local Food Syst

1/36

Bridging the GAPs

Strategies to Improve Produce Safety,Preserve Farm Diversity and

Strengthen Local Food Systems

Written by Elanor Starmer, Food & Water Watchand Marie Kulick, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Research assistance by Stephanie Ogburn


2/36

About Food & Water WatchFood & Water Watch is a nonprot consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and safe food. Food & Water

Watch works with grassroots organizations around the world to create an economically and environmentally viable fu-ture. Through research, public and policymaker education, media and lobbying, we advocate policies that guarantee safe,

wholesome food produced in a humane and sustainable manner, and public, rather than private, control of water resources

including oceans, rivers and groundwater.

Main ofce:1616 P St. NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036tel: (202) 683-2500fax: (202) [email protected]

www.foodandwaterwatch.org

Copyright September 2009 by Food & Water Watch and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. All rights reserved.This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org or www.iatp.org.

California Ofce:25 Stillman Street, Suite 200San Francisco, CA 94107tel: (415) 293-9900fax: (415) [email protected]

About the Institute for Agriculture and Trade PolicyThe Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensurefair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. We work to make food healthier by advocating for more sustainable foodproduction and a less contaminated food supply while supporting family farmers and rural communities.

2105 First Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55404

tel: (612) 870-0453fax: (612) [email protected]

www.iatp.org


3/36

Executive Summary and Recommendations.............................................................................................................................iv

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................1

Overview of Existing On-Farm Food Safety Practices................................................................................................................3

Federal Guidance: Good Agricultural Practices........................................................................................................................3

Public-Private Partnerships: The Leafy Green Marketing Agreement.........................................................................................4

Other Industry Food Safety Initiatives: The Super Metrics.......................................................................................................6

Global GAPs and Other International Food Safety Protocols....................................................................................................7

Food Safety in the U.S. Congress: Legislative Proposals..........................................................................................................8

Food Safety: What the Science Says...........................................................................................................................................10

Evidence on the Ground: The Consequences of a Food Safety Free-for-All.............................................................................12

Alternative Approaches at the Farm Level...............................................................................................................................17

Strategies to Improve Food Safety While Supporting Local Farm Systems...........................................................................22

Endnotes..........................................................................................................................................................24

Bridging the GAPsStrategies to Improve Produce Safety, Preserve Farm Diversityand Strengthen Local Food Systems


4/36

Bridging the GAPs: Strategies to Improve Produce Safety,Preserve Farm Diversity and Strengthen Local Food Systems

iv

Executive Summary

Although the vast majority of produce-related food-borne illnesses in the United States are traced back to food proces-sors and not to farms, several recent outbreaks associated with fresh or fresh-cut produce have brought the farm squarelyinto the food safety picture. A 2006 outbreak ofE. coli0157:H7 in bagged, ready-to-eat spinach and iceberg lettuce sentconsumers running from leafy greens; a 2008Salmonella outbreak, linked rst to tomatoes and then to chili peppers, hada similar chilling effect. As a result, both government and industry have developed guidelines or strict protocols intendedto improve produce safety on the farm.

Driven by a desire to prevent liability and to reassure consumers, many wholesale produce buyers and handlers fromregional distributors serving schools, to multinational supermarket chains require farmers to comply with one or moreof these on-farm food safety protocols. The protocols typically govern water and land use, worker hygiene, wildlife man-agement and other activities. Often, the farmer must pay for an audit to demonstrate compliance before the buyer willpurchase his or her product. Farmers selling to multiple buyers nd themselves entwined in an increasingly complex andcostly web of food safety programs, audits and certications.

This report begins with an overview of existing on-farm food safety policies and programs. It then analyzes the ramica-tions of existing and proposed protocols, and offers recommendations for improving produce safety while preserving thediversity of farm sizes and production methods present in the U.S. food system.

The primary programs examined include:

FederalGoodAgriculturalPractices(GAPs): On-farm food safety guidelines developed by the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. Although producers are not required by law to follow the guide-lines, many retailers and government institutions are making GAPs compliance veried by an audit mandatoryfor any producers wishing to supply them.

TheLeafyGreensMarketingAgreement(LGMA): Developed by large-scale farmers and buyers of leafy greens(spinach, lettuce, chard, kale and other products) in California and audited by the California Department of Food and

Agriculture. The agreement has also been adopted by the state of Arizona. As with the federal GAPs, producers arenot required by law to comply with the California LGMA, but companies that purchase 99 percent of Californias leafygreens require compliance by any producer supplying them.

Industrysupermetrics: Corporate food safety protocols developed by fresh produce buyers. The practices anddocumentation requirements of the protocols are usually considered condential business information shared only

between the company and the farmers from whom it buys. Press reports, academic research and other sources suggestthat the super metrics are more demanding and stringent than requirements under the LGMA or the federal GAPsaudit program. In order to sell to the company, farmers must be certied by an auditor to demonstrate compliance

with the protocols.

GlobalGAPsandotherinternationalfoodsafetyprotocols:Multinational food retailers and other wholesaleproduce buyers, including large U.S.-based companies, have created what they hope will become universal food safetyprotocols or meta-standards governing commercial food production worldwide. These include the GlobalGAPs, astandard that integrates labor and environmental concerns along with food safety, and the Global Food Safety Initia-tive, a benchmarking system largely intended for private food safety schemes.

Report fndings:

Existing food safety protocols, particularly those developed by industry, are not always grounded in sufcient inde-pendent science. In fact, scientic evidence suggests that their approach could harm food safety outcomes rather thanimproving them.

C Many industry protocols broadly target animals and wildlife habitat as a risk. The industrys approach con-tradicts research showing that only certain animals carry pathogens; that practices in use on diversied,conservation-oriented farms, including vegetation planted between elds and around waterways, benet food


5/36

Food & Water WatchInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

v

safety by slowing the movement of pathogenic organisms in water and dust; and that the incorporation ofwell-managed animal manure and other natural fertilizers into soil can suppress the presence of pathogenicorganisms in soil.

C Most protocols employ a one-size-ts-all approach that does not consider different types and levels of risk

present in different products or production systems. The vast majority of food-borne illness outbreaks in leafygreens, for example, are linked to bagged, ready-to-eat salad mixes, but the LGMA also covers whole, bunchedgreens. On a related note, while risks are present on farms of all sizes, the scale does matter: the consolidationof food production and processing into the hands of fewer and larger operations, and the national and globalsupply chains that bring much of our food from farms to consumers, have increased the chance that a singlecontamination incident could sicken a large number of people.

The current system burdens farmers and confuses consumers. Because so many different food safety protocols exist,farmers wishing to sell to multiple buyers are asked to comply with (and pay for) multiple protocols and audits. Con-sumers see a variety of claims made about the safety of their produce and have no way to compare or evaluate theseclaims.

The current system suffers from a lack of transparency. Many of the industry protocols are considered trade secretsand their requirements are not made pubic. As a result, it is impossible for consumers, researchers or policymakers toassess their performance. There is no public evidence that these protocols have improved food safety.

Existing food safety protocols are reversing decades of publicly funded environmental protection efforts on U.S. farmsThe messages that farmers receive from buyers contradict messages from federal and state conservation agencies.Farmers in at least one region of the country are declining to participate in federal conservation programs because ofconcerns that doing so will jeopardize their ability to comply with industry food safety requirements.

Greater regulation of industrial livestock and poultry facilities is needed in order to improve the safety of fresh pro-duce. Current protocols penalize farmers for proximity to feedlots, whose placement the farmers cannot control.Industrial animal facilities, particularly those routinely using feed laced with antibiotics, are a signicant source ofpathogens such asE. coli0157:H7, including drug-resistant strains, in the environment. These facilities must be more

stringently regulated as part of any comprehensive food safety policy.

The current system jeopardizes efforts to build local and regional food systems. Smaller, limited resource and/or morediverse farms often cannot or will not comply with programs that require expensive testing, audits and electronicdocumentation and that mandate the removal of conservation practices. Because of the expense and the practicesrequired by many food safety protocols, the system is biased in favor of larger, less-diverse farms and access to foodproduced locally, sustainably or on smaller-scale operations is limited.

An alternative approach to produce safety on the farm

This report documents a number of promising alternatives to the current system. In response to the proliferation of indus-try food safety programs, organizations around the country have developed food safety practice and documentation pro-tocols or guidelines designed for smaller, organic, conservation-oriented or diversied farms (those that produce a widerange of crops and often animals on the same farm) selling to institutional or wholesale markets. These programs attemptto integrate food safety, conservation and other goals and to reduce costs. There are also efforts by universities and stateand local governments to target GAPs outreach to small and mid-sized farms and to make GAPs audits more affordable.

The report nds that:

These alternative models enhance food safety by helping a wide range of farms to integrate food safety programs intotheir day-to-day operations. Some of the programs further bolster food safety by encouraging win-win practices thatenhance conservation and food safety, such as the planting of vegetation between crops and waterways.


6/36


vi

The alternative models strengthen local and regional food systems by helping smaller and more biodiverse farms reas-sure institutional and wholesale buyers that they prioritize food safety in their operations. This reassurance gives thefarms access to important markets.

Looking to these alternatives as a model can help federal agencies make the GAPs and other protocols more user-

friendly and cost-effective.

Although the alternatives have many positive impacts, relying on these programs alone will not solve all of the currentproblems. A proliferation of competing alternatives could confuse farmers, consumers and buyers just as the current setof competing industry standards does. These programs are also subject to less public oversight than are government-ledinitiatives.

Therefore, the report concludes that a more comprehensive government-led approach must be developed. Food safetycannot be relegated to protocols that differ from company to company, leaving farmers to juggle multiple standards andconsumers to guess what marketing claims about food safety actually mean. But federal legislation must be structured sothat farms of all sizes and types can participate.

Recommendations:As Congress proceeds with legislation that may govern on-farm food safety, and as the USDA considers a petition to enacta national version of the LGMA, this report makes a number of recommendations for future food safety policy. The recom-mendations below are intended to guide the direction of food safety policies governing food sales to wholesale and institu-tional markets because they often involve longer supply chains, larger volumes, comingling, and possible consumption bymore consumers, including vulnerable populations.

Broad stakeholder inuence is vital to the development of a fair and affordable approach to on-farm food safety.Small, diversied and limited-resource farms must be at the table, and policymakers must carefully consider the fea-sibility of any food safety program for these producers. Doing otherwise will reduce the number of operations able toparticipate, with potentially negative outcomes for both food safety and U.S. farms.

Food safety policy must accurately identify the sources of risk in the produce production chain and focus the bulk offederal resources on the areas of highest risk.

Specic measures to mitigate the risk of microbial contamination of produce must be based on sufcient and indepen-dent science.

Policymakers must avoid taking a one-size-ts-all approach to produce safety. Recommended practices and record-keeping mechanisms must be adaptable to a range of farms and supply chains.

Food safety protocols must maximize compatibility with environmental, conservation and waste-reduction goals aswell as organic and other certication programs.

Signicant educational and training resources must be devoted to assist farmers in transitioning to any new food

safety protocol. Again, such efforts will enhance participation and thereby enhance food safety.

Auditors must receive training to ensure that they are enforcing protocol requirements fairly and consistently. Theymust be trained on the relationship between food safety protocols, conservation program requirements and the or-ganic certication requirements. They should also be familiar with a variety of farming systems and practices.

Marketing agreements are typically developed by industry and are voluntary for the buyers that participate in them.Because they are voluntary, food safety protocols enforced through marketing agreements are no guarantee that otherindustry protocols will not continue to proliferate. They also fail to solve the problem of farmer audit fatigue andconsumer confusion. Therefore, marketing agreements must not be used as a vehicle to enforce on-farm food safetypractices.


7/36


1

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of theDepartment of Health and Human Services, is charged withpromoting the safety of 80 percent of food in the UnitedStates, including fresh and fresh-cut produce. The FDAsability to carry out this work is hampered by serious de-ciencies in agency funding, stafng and authority.5 Onlyabout 3 percent of the FDAs food safety dollars and 4 per-cent of its manpower target the produce sector.6 As a result,the agency is frequently slow to conduct research on micro-

bial contamination and to promulgate regulations governingthe sector. As of this writing, the agency lacks the authorityto require a recall of contaminated products. While it ap-pears to have some authority to regulate on-farm food safetypractices, it has not exercised that authority to date.

The FDAs work has become more burdensome and com-plex with the growing complexity of the food system itself.The volume of produce imported into the United States has

Introduction

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an estimated 76 million peopleare sickened with some kind of food-borne illness each year in the United States.1Recent years have seen a number of highly publicized disease outbreaks resulting fromcontaminated produce, including the 2006 outbreak ofE. coli0157:H7 in bagged spin-ach and the 2008 outbreak ofSalmonella, rst linked to tomatoes and later to Mexican

jalapeo and serrano chili peppers. Although the majority of documented food-borne

illnesses have been traced back to processing plants2 and not to poor food safety prac-tices on the farm,3 these events turned a spotlight on the farm as a potential site ofmicrobial contamination in fresh and fresh-cut produce.

Fresh vs. Fresh Cut

According to the FDA, the term fresh produce refersto fresh fruit and vegetables that are likely to be sold toconsumers in an unprocessed or minimally processed(i.e. raw) form. Fresh produce may be sold with leavesintact, such as strawberries, whole carrots or radishes, orit may be cut minimally during harvesting, as when the

outer leaves of celery, broccoli, or cauliower are removedbefore packing. The term fresh-cut produce refers toproducts that undergo a greater amount of processing andpackaging before they are eaten but are still consumedraw, such as ready-to-eat bagged salad mixes.4 This reportuses the term fresh to refer to both categories exceptwhen discussing the contamination risk posed by the pro-cessing and packaging of fresh-cut produce. On-farm foodsafety protocols impact farmers growing produce for bothfresh and fresh-cut markets in the same way.


8/36


2

tripled in the last 20 years without a concomitant rise inFDA inspectors.7 Produce supply chains connecting farmersto consumers have lengthened and may stretch around the

world, mixing the products of many farms together, ship-ping product over long distances and using new technolo-

gies to extend shelf life. Food markets have consolidatedinto the hands of a few large corporations that deal intremendous volume.8 Larger volumes and longer supplychains, in turn, make trace-back more difcult and put alarger number of consumers at risk if there is an incident ofmicrobial contamination somewhere in the system.

It is in this context that efforts to address produce safetyon the farm are taking place. In 1998, the FDA issued

voluntary guidelines to assist producers in minimizingfood safety risks in fresh or fresh-cut produce. It then cre -ated an audit program based on the guidelines. Retailersand wholesale buyers have responded to contaminationoutbreaks by developing and publicizing their own producesafety protocols for farmers; driven by a fear of liabilityand a desire to reassure consumers, a growing number ofthese buyers from regional distributors serving schoolsto multinational supermarket chains now require thefarms that supply them to comply with either the federalaudit program or a third-party produce safety protocol.Farmers are often required to pay for the audit to verifycompliance. Farmers selling to multiple buyers may haveto comply with multiple protocols and pay for multipleaudits.

While no research has been able to determine how manyproduce safety protocols are in use in the United States,anecdotal evidence shows that the number is large andgrowing. What is much less clear is whether these protocolsare having a positive impact on food safety. Many of theindustry protocols equate sterile farm environments withsafe environments; a body of scientic research nds thatthe types of sterilizing activities commonly promoted

by buyers actually increase the likelihood that pathogenicorganisms will survive in soil or travel to crops.

There has been little research on the impact of these pro-tocols on small and mid-sized farmers selling to wholesale

or institutional markets. If the protocols requirementsare expensive to implement, or if they make it difcult tocarry out conservation and biodiversity practices commonto smaller farms, these farms may be shut out of markets

because they are unable or unwilling to comply with theprotocol. Such an outcome would jeopardize efforts to de-

velop strong, viable local and regional food systems becauseonly larger and less diverse farms could participate.

If local and regional food systems are weakened, food safetywill suffer. Contamination is easier to trace through shortsupply chains than through the complex global supplychains that characterize industrial agriculture today.9 Thescale of a production system also determines its impact: ifcontamination takes place on a small farm, it will sickenfar fewer people than if it occurs along the industrial foodchain.

Food safety protocols are coming to the farm, particularlyfarms selling to wholesale or institutional markets. Thesebuyers now require assurance that farms are prioritizingfood safety. Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) and the FDA are also considering proposals forguidelines, marketing agreements or regulations that gov-ern on-farm food safety practices. The question is thereforenot whether but how these protocols will be designed. Theanswer will in turn determine the impact on farm viability,consumer safety and local food-based economies.

This report begins with an overview of existing govern-ment and industry food safety policies and protocols. It

then examines whether the protocols are supported by thebest available independent science and uses on-the-groundexamples to discuss their impacts. The report goes on tooutline alternative approaches that provide buyer andconsumer assurance while reducing costs to the farmer andsupporting conservation and biodiversity practices. It con-cludes with a set of policy recommendations that will helprealize the goals of food safety, resource conservation, farmdiversity and consumer choice.


9/36


3

Overview of Existing On-Farm FoodSafety Protocols

There is no universal on-farm food safety protocol forfresh produce. Though many practices on these farms are

regulated to some degree, the federal government dependson voluntary guidelines commonly referred to as federalGood Agricultural Practices (GAPs) to address the risk ofmicrobial contamination of produce on the farm.

Many wholesale buyers of fresh produce have taken thevoluntary federal guidance one step further by requiringfarmers to be audited to assure compliance with federalGAPs. Other companies, perhaps believing that more strin-gent protocols can reduce risk even further, have adoptedfood safety programs developed by private third-party certi-ers such as Primus Labs.10 The companies then contract

with these certiers to audit the farms. Others have gonestill further and created their own private standard, often

basing their requirements on the federal GAPs, addingadditional criteria not included in the GAPs, and requiringenforcement by auditors.11,12

Though most of these protocols are meant to apply to anytype of fresh produce, more and more commodity-specicprotocols have been developed. Companies may require afood safety audit before buying any type of produce from afarmer, or they may require the audit only for certain cropsdeemed most risky. It is difcult to know how many compa-nies require grower compliance with a food safety protocol,

but anecdotal evidence suggests that the number is alreadysignicant and growing quickly.

Below is an overview of key programs including federalguidance, industry initiatives and congressional proposalsfor on-farm food safety regulation.

Federal Guidance: Good Agricultural

PracticesThe FDA and the USDA jointly published the rst farm-level guidelines for the safety of fresh produce in 1998.The Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazardsfor Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, otherwise known as thefederal GAPs, offers voluntary best practices to farmersand food processors to reduce produce safety hazards. Thefederal GAPs include guidance on farm worker hygiene,manure management, the quality of irrigation and wash

water, and other risk management issues.

Although the federal GAPs are voluntary, farmers andprocessors have the option of receiving an audit to verifytheir compliance with these guidelines through the USDAQualied Through Verication Program. The audit program

was initially developed by the USDA in response to retailerrequests that farmers demonstrate adherence to federalGAPs;13 it is now run through the USDAs AgriculturalMarketing Service and 16 state departments of agriculture.The auditors that conduct the federal GAPs audits areeither USDA employees or state department of agricultureemployees operating under a cooperative agreement withUSDA. Federal and state auditors must meet the samerequirements.14

The GAPs also have a self-certication option farmers arenot audited but do document compliance with the federalguidelines but a growing number of wholesale produce

buyers now require produce suppliers to pay for and be cer-tied through an audit. The audit requirement effectivelyturns voluntary guidance into a mandatory program forthese producers. Since 2007, all producers supplying freshproduce to food and nutrition programs through the USDAFruit and Vegetable Programs Commodity ProcurementBranch have been required to pass a federal GAPs audit

The term GAPs originally referred only to the federal Good

Agricultural Practices guidelines but has since become

a generic term used by many companies to describe the

practices they recommend to, or require of, their suppliers.

However, for the purposes of this report, federal GAPs will

be used to refer only to the program developed by the FDAand USDA, while state GAPs refers to similar programs

developed and implemented by state departments of agricul-

ture. We do not use the term GAPs in reference to industry-

developed protocols.


10/36


4

with a score of 80 percent or higher.15 In most instances,the farmers must pay for audits including the auditorstime and mileage and must be certied on an annual ba-sis.16 Auditors usually visit during the growing season andagain during harvest.17 Each crop requires a separate audit,

which depending on the growing season of each crop mayrequire multiple visits to the farm.18 Fees are set by individ-

ual states, but the majority of them follow the federal rateof $92 per hour per auditor.19

Key pluses and minuses

One major benet of the federal GAPs guidance is exibil-ity. The document opens with the assertion that Becauseof the diversity of agricultural practices and commodities,practices recommended to minimize microbial contamina-tion will be most effective when adapted to specic opera-tions. For each risk point, the guidance document laysout a variety of potential controls and urges producers tochoose the one most appropriate to their operations.i The

guidelines are intended to be applicable to all fresh producecrops. For small, diversied and/or organic farms, this ex-ibility is vital to making the guidelines workable.

i For example, the water section of the GAPs guidance is prefaced bythe following statement: Operators should consider the followingissues and practices when assessing water quality and in applyingcontrols to minimize microbial food safety hazards. Not all of thefollowing recommendations will be applicable or necessary for alloperations. Rather, growers and packers should select practices, orcombinations of practices, appropriate to their operations and thequality of their water supply, to achieve food safety goals.

The voluntary and exible nature of the federal GAPs has adownside as well. The proliferation of strict, auditable foodsafety standards created by produce buyers or third-partycertiers, detailed below, suggests that voluntary GAPsguidelines are not meeting their needs. Produce buyers

want assurance that farmers are complying with a foodsafety program stringent enough to provide protection fromliability. Some buyers address this concern by requiringfarms to pass federal GAPs audits, which are much less ex-ible than the guidelines. (Some of the specic requirementsof the audit are discussed in the section on on-the-groundimpacts.) For other buyers, even passing a federal GAPsaudit is not enough.

The GAPs guidance document has been criticized for leavingout some information that could help producers assess andtarget risks. One major criticism is that the guidelines do notplace sufcient emphasis on the risk posed to fresh produce

by beef and dairy cattle operations. Cattle are the largestsource ofE. coli0157:H7 (a particularly pathogenic strainofE. coli) on the landscape,20 yet the federal GAPs do notprovide detailed guidance to help producers mitigate the im-pacts of nearby livestock operations. Wildlife and conserva-tion groups have also criticized the federal GAPs for provid-ing vague guidance on the risks posed by other animals. This

vague guidance, they contend, has led some producers andauditors to view all wildlife as a risk rather than focusing onanimals known to harbor pathogenicE. coli.21

Current status

In 2008, spurred on by a series of food contaminationoutbreaks and a Government Accountability Ofce reportcalling for stronger oversight of fresh produce, the FDA an-nounced its plans to update the federal GAPs and requestedpublic comments on how the agency could improve theguidance it offers to producers and processors of fresh pro-duce.22 As of this writing, no action has been taken by theFDA in response to public comments.

Public-Private Partnerships: TheLeafy Green Marketing Agreement

Like the federal GAPs, the Leafy Greens Marketing Agree-ment (LGMA) is a set of guidelines containing best practicesfor minimizing microbial risk related to water use, the use ofsoil amendments like compost, worker hygiene, wildlife andother issues. But unlike the federal GAPs, the LGMA was de-

veloped by industry and is focused on one produce category,leafy greens. The LGMA denition of leafy greens includesspinach, lettuce and other greens typically included in fresh-cut mixes and eaten raw, as well as kale, cabbage and related


11/36


5

crops that are generally sold whole and unprocessed and areusually cooked before eating.23

The agreement was developed by a group of large-scalefarmers and produce handlers in California in response

to the deadly 2006 outbreak ofE. coli0157:H7 in baggedspinach. The spinach recall resulting from the outbreak,and the consequential lack of consumer condence in theindustry, had a disproportionate impact on produce farm-ers and handlers in California and Arizona, since nearly 89percent of leafy greens sold in the United States come fromthese two states.24

The LGMA guidelines are technically voluntary, but be-cause produce companies that purchase over 99 percentof Californias leafy greens have committed to selling onlyproducts grown in compliance with the LGMA,25 the stan-dard has essentially become mandatory for many California

farmers. It has since been adopted by Arizonas leafy greensindustry. Both Canada and Mexico have adopted regula-tions allowing the imports of leafy greens only from LGMA-certied companies.26

The LGMA is considered a public-private partnershipbecause the California Department of Food and Agriculture(CDFA) employs the inspectors that audit the farms par-ticipating in the LGMA. These inspectors receive trainingfrom the USDA similar to that given to the federal GAPsinspectors and then receive additional training on theLGMAs food safety practices. The produce handlers whoare members of the LGMA have agreed to tax themselvesto collectively pay for the expense of government audits.27California companies publicize their participation in theLGMA through a seal on produce packaging conrmingthat the product is certied by the California Department ofFood and Agriculture.


Produce buyers believed that the LGMA would reduce theincidence of contamination in leafy greens elds and sawmandatory government audits of the LGMA standards asoffering additional security.28 For leafy greens farmers, theLGMA offered hope of a respite from private industry stan-

dards and the requirement that they comply with multiplestandards in order to sell to multiple buyers.

The food safety benets to companies participating inthe LGMA are unclear. Shortly before this report went topress, an LGMA signatory company recalled 22,000 casesof lettuce that had been shipped to 29 states because let-tuce from the lot tested positive for Salmonella.29 No foodsafety protocol guarantees safe food, nor is it known where

the contamination of the lettuce took place. That said, therecent outbreak raises questions about the agreements ef-fectiveness.

For farmers, the expected gains from having one standard

applied consistently across the leafy greens industry havenot materialized. Some produce buyers who adopted theLGMA continue to enforce their own standards as well, re-quiring farmers to be audited for both. For example, SYSCOclaims that it support[s] and enforces all current require-ments set forth by the California Marketing Agreement with[additional] higher standards in the areas pertaining to

water quality and ATP Bioluminescence testing.30 Fresh Ex-press, Chiquitas fresh produce brand, is a signatory to theLGMA but uses additional requirements with its farmers.31

Another weakness of the LGMA is that it cannot be eas-ily adopted by small and mid-sized farms or farms grow-

ing multiple crops. Small farm, conservation and wildlifegroups were not at the table until very late in the LGMAdevelopment process; while they succeeded in makingcertain changes to the agreement, concerns still linger particularly around the stringent guidance on wildlife, non-crop vegetation and water testing. These groups also worrythat small and biodiverse farms are being forced to choose

between market access and their biodiversity and conserva-tion goals.32


12/36


6

Current Status

In October 2007, the USDA issued an Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking stating its intent to make the LGMAa national protocol. In March 2009, the USDAs Fruit and

Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee, which plays animportant consultative role within the agency, passed amotion in continued support of a national LGMA.33 Twomonths later, the United Fresh Produce Association, along

with the Produce Marketing Association, Western GrowersAssociation and seven other groups, ofcially petitionedthe USDAs Agricultural Marketing Service to establish anational marketing agreement for farmers and handlers ofleafy greens.34 This petition starts a formal process by AMS,including public hearings that will inuence the agencysdecision about whether a marketing agreement proposalshould go forward.

Other Industry Food SafetyInitiatives: The Super Metrics

Some buyers in the fresh produce industry includingproduce companies, food distributors, foodservice com-panies and retail outlets like supermarkets have gone

beyond the federal GAPs or the LGMA and created, eitherindividually or in coordination with other companies, theirown private food safety standards that are enforced by au-ditors.35 They may choose to do so because they believe thatexisting protocols are too lax or that they do not cover somerisk areas. Dr. Mechel Paggi, a professor at California State

University, likens the proliferation of private standards toan arms race to prove who is providing the safest foodand hopefully capitalize on a perception of related consum-er preferences.36

These private standards, or super metrics, are of greatconcern to producers, consumers and regulators. Whilesome have been made publicly available for example,the Food Safety Leadership Councils on-farm producestandards, which were created in 2007 by a consortium ofmajor produce buyers including McDonalds, Wal-Mart,

Walt Disney World, Publix Super Markets and DardenRestaurants37 many companies standards are considered

a trade secret and are therefore condential. Companiesreadily report that they have a strict food safety protocol,

but they are much more hesitant to reveal specic proto-col requirements. Requests by the authors of this reportto multiple produce companies to share their food safetyrequirements were met with responses similar to the fol-lowing, which was sent by a staff person at Chiquita/FreshExpress, based in Salinas, California:

Fresh Express is a signatory to the LGMA in bothArizona and California. Additionally, we have alsodeveloped extensive guidelines for the procurement ofleafy greens and other produce but we consider suchguidelines to be our condential and proprietary infor-mation.38

Based on the limited amount of information available onprivate food safety standards, it appears that many takean extreme, sterile farm approach to growing fresh

produce. Many of the requirements do not appear to havea strong scientic basis. Researcher Diana Stuart, a doc-toral candidate at UC Santa Cruz, has carried out surveysand interviews with farmers on Californias Central Coastthat broadly characterize the actions farmers are taking inresponse to buyer requirements. She calls the private stan-dards consistently more detailed and stringent than otherguidelines39 For example, while the LGMA requires 400-foot buffers between crops and livestock operations, somecompany standards require much larger buffers and theremoval of all non-crop vegetation near elds, since it couldharbor wildlife.40 The extreme nature of these standards hasled critics to dub them super metrics measurements offood safety that go far beyond the federal GAPs guidelines.The California example is illustrative, since anecdotal evi-dence suggests that buyers across the country are beginningto impose similar requirements on their suppliers.


The proliferation of industry super metrics may providecompanies with a feeling of security and an opportunityto capitalize on the competitive benets associated with


13/36


7

having a safe food protocol. However, the super metricsprovide few benets for farmers or consumers and theycomplicate the work of policymakers and regulators.

Producers on farms of all sizes suffer when forced to comply

with multiple, sometimes conicting, food safety protocolsand audits. It is also clear from the information availablethat industry super metrics conict with many practicesimportant to smaller, diversied and conservation-orientedfarmers including biodiversity and soil and water conser-

vation. The super metrics threaten to undo several decadesworth of taxpayer-funded conservation programs on U.S.farms, harming conservation goals at great expense andfailing to result in positive food safety outcomes.

Consumers, policymakers and other stakeholders are ill-served by a set of standards they can neither access norevaluate. As mentioned, many of the industry protocolsare condential. When a farmer signs a contract to sell toa company using such a standard, he or she agrees not todisclose the requirements to others. It is therefore impos-sible for stakeholders to investigate the protocols scientic

basis; gain a full understanding of the protocols impactson food safety, water quality and availability, wildlife, orother factors; or engage in productive dialogue with pro-duce companies.

An additional concern is companies use of third-party au-ditors to certify compliance with the super metrics. In thefederal GAPs program and the LGMA, all auditors receive

training through the USDA. Such training helps ensurethat the standards are interpreted consistently. In thecase of company super metrics, however, such consistencyis not guaranteed. Producers selling to more than onecompany must grapple not only with multiple food safetyprotocols, but also with multiple auditors who may inter-pret similar language in different ways. There may also bea conict of interest if auditors are paid by the producer toconduct eld inspections.

Current status

It is difcult to tell whether the number and scope ofprivate food safety protocols is growing because so fewcompanies make protocol information public. Anecdotalevidence suggests that the number of companies developingor adopting such protocols is on the rise. The super metricsare now a major focus for many farm and conservationgroups, which contend that the proliferation of industrysuper metrics creates burdens for farmers while damagingthe environment.

Global GAPs and Other InternationalFood Safety Protocols

Food safety concerns do not stop at the border, particularlyin an era of globalized supply chains. In response to food

safety concerns and the proliferation of private food safetyprotocols, multinational food retailers and other produce

buyers including large U.S.-based companies with inter-national subsidiaries have joined together to develop auniform set of standards and certication requirements fortheir produce suppliers worldwide. Two of the most widelyadopted global protocols are highlighted here.

GlobalGAP: Formerly known as the Euro-Retailer ProduceWorking Group Good Agricultural Practices (EurepGAP),GlobalGAP was developed over 10 years ago to create a uni-

versal standard appropriate to most food products, includ-ing fresh fruits and vegetables, and used worldwide as wayto help farmers avoid the burden of multiple protocols andaudits.41 ALDI, Wegmans Food Market, U.S. Foodserviceand McDonalds are among the members of GlobalGAP thatare headquartered or operate in the United States.42


14/36


15/36


9

increasing the frequency of government inspection of foodprocessors. Some bills call for the federal GAPs to be up-dated or required of all fresh produce farmers, while otherscreate new requirements for risk-based food safety plansand more stringent recordkeeping on the farm.iii

iii H.R. 875 would have required farms and processors to create a food safetyplan focusing on the points of greatest risk and to keep records, in either pa-per or electronic form, documenting compliance with the plan. In July 2008,Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the FDA Food Safety ModernizationAct (S. 3385) which would have required the Secretary to establish science-

based minimum standards for the most risky agricultural commodities. Rep.Jim Costa (D-CA)s Safe FEAST Act, introduced in April 2008 and againin March 2009, would require the Secretary to establish regulations for the

production, packaging and handling of those products necessary to minimizethe risk of serious adverse health consequences. It would also require theGAPs to be updated within one year of the bills enactment.


A key benet of government regulation for on-farm foodsafety practices is that by creating a nationally accepted,

government-backed standard, regulation would reduce thepressure on buyers to develop their own mandatory foodsafety protocols. In minimizing the proliferation of suchprotocols, regulation could alleviate the burden on produc-ers to comply with multiple protocols and audits. It wouldalso reduce the consumer confusion that results from alarge number of food safety claims in the marketplace. On-farm food safety regulations would be developed througha rulemaking process, including public comment, ensuringan opportunity for participation by all interested stake-

A popular feature of proposed food safety legislation and food

safety discussions is the concept of traceability. Regulators

are focusing on systems to improve trace-back from retailers

to the farm in the hopes that such a system will speed the

identication of a contaminated product and help regulatorstrace it through the supply chain. In the fall of 2008, the FDA

held a series of public meetings to discuss whether greater

traceability was needed in the food system and how it might

be achieved.

In these meetings, the FDA argued that its ability to trace

contaminated food was hindered by the limitations of current

law, which allows the agency unfettered access to food com-

panies records only aftera major health threat has surfaced.

Large players from the produce industry, including the Produce

Marketing Association and the United Fresh Produce Associa-

tion, argued that current law was sufcient but that trace-back

would be facilitated if all producers and processors used a

standard record-keeping procedure and standard nomencla-

ture.49 These and other industry groups have proposed their

own alternative to regulation, called the Produce Traceability

Initiative, which would standardize recordkeeping and labeling

practices across the industry by 2012. It recommends the use

of bar codes on cases of produce and an electronic system for

recording data.

A proposal to require traceability through regulation was also

explored in the FDA meetings, and companies eager to market

electronic tracking technology to the government pedaled their

wares.50

Several bills were offered in the spring of 2009 tomandate some sort of traceability system for food that would

extend from farms to retail outlets and restaurants. [See, for

example, H.R. 814, The Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Con-

tamination Everywhere Act of 2009 (TRACE Act), sponsored by

Rep. DeGette (D-CO), which would have required the establish-

ment of a traceability system for all stages of manufacturing,

processing, packaging, and distribution of food shipped in

interstate commerce and would also establish a traceability

system for livestock, poultry, and eggs. See also H.R. 759,

The Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009,

sponsored by Rep. Dingell (D-MI), which would have expanded

the traceability requirements of the Bioterrorism Act of 2002to farms and restaurants, mandating standardized electronic

records and standardized lot numbers.] Elements of some

of these bills were incorporated into legislation authored by

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep.

Henry Waxman. His bill, H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhance-

ment Act, was passed by the House of Representatives in July

2009 and instructs the FDA to conduct a pilot project and

public meetings on traceability.

The intense focus on traceability by regulators and some

members of Congress is worrisome. Traceability does not

address the root causes of fresh produce contamination; it

simply ensures that in the event of an outbreak, the contami-

nated product can be more easily traced back to the farm and

companies distributing the product can be alerted. While this

is of course useful, it is not a solution. Regulations mandating

the traceability of food may also burden small and limited-re-

source farms disproportionately by requiring them to purchase

and maintain costly electronic tagging systems to log their

produce as it comes off the eld.

Because longer and more complex supply chains increase con

tamination risk and complicate trace-back,51 it is important to

distinguish between systems that tend to hide the origin and

identity of food, or that mix products from multiple sourcestogether, and those that feature identity and information about

the production system as a marketing advantage. Food that is

produced and marketed directly to local consumers is inher-

ently more traceable than food that travels through a complex

global supply chain. The former would not require tracking

systems of the same complexity.

Traceability


16/36


10

holders, and would be subject to public oversight.

But to ensure maximum participation by farmers andmaximum acceptance by consumers, federal food safetyregulations must work for many farm sizes and types, not

take a one-size-ts-all or commodity-specic approach.Regulations must focus on the most signicant risk areasand recommend practices that are known to improve foodsafety. They must also take into consideration other goalsequally important to many farmers and consumers, such asresource conservation. Lawmakers must devote signicantresources to outreach and training so that small and limit-ed-resource farms do not see greater barriers to participa-tion. Additional qualities of an effective, acceptable federalregulatory program are included in the recommendationssection of this report.

Current statusAs of this writing, the House of Representatives had passeda food safety bill that contains several provisions on theissues discussed above; the Senate has not yet taken up thefood safety issue.

Food Safety: What the Science Says

All of the above-mentioned food safety protocols have beenput in place to try to reduce and manage the risk of micro-

bial contamination in fresh produce, but they vary in theirassessment of what constitutes risk. What does the science

tell us about where a risk-based produce food safety proto-col should focus?

Where does microbial contaminationcome from?

Produce is responsible for a signicant number of totalfood-borne illness outbreaks in the United States. Accord-ing to a Center for Science in the Public Interest analysis ofdata from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), produce is second only to seafood in the number ofoutbreaks it has caused since 1990 (although the analysisonly includes food regulated by the FDA, which does notinclude meat). Notably, the analysis does not identify wherealong the supply chain the contamination takes place.52 Fewanalysts have examined this question, leaving a major gapin our understanding of risk in the produce supply chain.

Basic on-farm sanitation practices such as hand washingand proper water and manure management are unques-tionably important regardless of the type of farm or cropsgrown. However, certain crops and production methodspresent different, or greater, risks than do others. Once

Once produce has leftthe farm, the risk ofcontamination appearsto increase based ona number of factors,

including whetherone farms produce iscomingled with thatof other farms afterharvest; whether produceundergoes processingand packaging, as in

the case of bagged saladmixes; how long it isshipped and stored beforeit is eaten; whether theproduct is eaten raw orcooked; and the length ofthe supply chain linking

farmers to consumers.


17/36


11

produce has left the farm, the risk of contamination ap-pears to increase based on a number of factors, including

whether one farms produce is comingled with that of otherfarms after harvest; whether produce undergoes processingand packaging, as in the case of bagged salad mixes; how

long it is shipped and stored before it is eaten; whether theproduct is eaten raw or cooked; and the length of the supplychain linking farmers to consumers.53

An analysis by the Community Alliance with Family Farm-ers of food-borne illness outbreaks in the leafy greens in-dustry since 1990 found that nearly 99 percent of outbreaks

were linked to processed, bagged ready to eat salad mixesrather than unprocessed greens.54 The increased level ofrisk appears to be related to co-mingling and processing,

which can cause cross-contamination among different ship-ments of greens. The packaging used and the longer shelflife of bagged greens also appear to correlate with increasedrisk. USDA food technologist Gerald Sapers notes that coldtemperatures and high relative humidity conditions, whichare often optimal for shelf-life extension of fresh fruits and

vegetables, may actually favor the viability of some humanpathogens such as viral particles.55

These traits are not exclusive to the industrial food sys-tem, but all are present in the industrial food chain. Somepractices, such as the sale of ready-to-eat salad mixes insealed bags, are marketed almost exclusively by industrialoperations. It is therefore not surprising that the recentlarge outbreaks of food-borne illness have been associated

with industrial agriculture.57

Small and/or diversied farms are not risk-free; there hasbeen at least one incident of produce-related food-borne

illness linked to a small operation serving farmers mar-kets.58 But a growing body of scientic evidence suggeststhat the management practices common to smaller, biodi-

verse and conservation-oriented farmers are a net benet tofood safety. As detailed below, this evidence raises seri-

ous questions about the sterile farm practices currentlyrequired by some buyers. It also suggests opportunities tointegrate food safety and conservation goals through im-proved guidance or regulation.

Investment in conservation efforts on U.S.farms: A benet to food safety

Over the last few decades, farmers were explicitly encour-aged through federal programs, including the ConservationReserve Program (CRP), Environmental Quality Incen-tives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat IncentivesProgram (WHIP), to install vegetated buffers, hedgerows,

trees, lter strips and other measures in order to improveresource conservation and management on the farm. InCalifornias Central Coast, where waterways have repeat-edly failed to meet water quality standards due to elevatedlevels of nutrients, sediment and pesticides,59 state agenciesand the USDAs Natural Resources Conservation Serviceoffer technical and nancial assistance to farmers to adoptconservation measures critical to protecting water quality.60

Conservation practices serve multiple goals, includingthat of improving food safety. Research shows that grassand wetlands can lter 99 percent of theE. colipresent insurface water.61 Hedgerows and lter strips can interceptairborne dust and chemical drift and detain water-borne

Packaging Matters: Ready-to-EatBagged Greens

Produce companies now use modied atmosphere packag-

ing (MAP) for their bagged salad mixes. This process is de-

signed to extend the shelf life of packaged foods by lowering

the oxygen level and adjusting the balance of gases inside

the package. Although it is convenient, its food safety track

record is mixed. Researchers have found that MAP may inhib-

it some pathogen strains, but others can remain unaffectedor are even stimulated by the incubated environment. In their

text on the Microbiology of Fruits and Vegetables, USDA food

technologist Gerald Sapers and co-authors give one example

of a pathogen that could present a threat in bagged greens:

Because L. monocytogenes [commonly known as Listeria]

can grow at refrigeration temperatures, low inoculum lev-

els, coupled with extended shelf life obtained by the use of

MAP, may allow L. monocytogenes to proliferate to infectious

dosages late in shelf life.56


18/36


12

pathogens.62 Well-managed soil, which has a higher diver-sity and biomass of soil microbial and faunal communi-ties, has been found to suppress and reduce the longevityofE. coli0157:H7 and other pathogens in the elds.63 Incontrast, removing tail-water systems and sediment basins

practices that catch irrigation runoff and help lter thewater before it re-enters the ecosystem or is reused on thefarm worsens water quality, increases sediment andcauses erosion.

Yet the LGMA and industry food safety protocols appear tobe targeting non-crop vegetation and farm ponds becausethey could harbor wildlife.64 More information on theserequirements is included in the Evidence on the groundsection below.

Industry food safety efforts miss the

targetMore research is needed to gain a thorough understand-ing of the sources of microbial contamination on the farm,

but much is already known. Scientic evidence nds thatcattle, particularly those that are fed grain65 or ethanolco-products,66 are the most signicant source ofE. coli0157:H7 on the landscape.67 New research suggests thaties from cattle feedlots may serve as a major vector forE.colicontamination on leafy greens.68 The practice of feedinglivestock, including cattle, antibiotics for growth promotionhas increased the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant strainsof pathogens likeE. coli, and with it, related food safetyrisks.69

Meanwhile, deer, rodents and wild birds have not beenfound to be signicant carriers ofE. coli0157:H7.70 Apreliminary 2009 study by Californias Department of Fishand Game found that less than 0.5 percent of the nearly900 wild animals they sampled tested positive forE. coli0157:H7; none of the positives were deer, a species listed asrisky under the LGMA.71

This evidence suggests that food safety protocols thatbroadly target wildlife and their habitat are misguided. Pro-ducers need animal-specic guidance to help them properly

address the risks posed by different types of wildlife. Foodsafety protocols must also focus on cattle, particularly thosefed grain and ethanol co-products, as a signicant contami-nation risk factor. Food safety will benet from guidelinesthat emphasize the benets of non-crop vegetation andsoil biodiversity; for example, food safety protocols couldencourage producers close to livestock operations to plant

vegetated buffers or other conservation measures to reducethe amount of dust, water and ies traveling from animalsto the crops.

When the science is unclear

There is much that the science cannot tell us about howto best reduce risk on the farm. Individual farm condi-tions vary considerably; nding ways to utilize farmerssite-specic knowledge is therefore critical to an effectivefood safety strategy. There are also many areas where wedo not have a solid body of independent science to guideour thinking on the question of risk. As a rst step, futurefood safety protocols should not require practices knownto harm food safety. Additional suggestions on a risk-basedprotocol are included in the recommendations section ofthis report.

Evidence on the Ground: TheConsequences of a Food Safety Free-

for-AllThe proliferation of ad hoc on-farm food safety protocolshas led to many needless, and perhaps unintended, conse-quences for U.S. produce farmers, but especially for small-er-scale, organic and diversied farms and the consumers

wishing to purchase their products.

Consequences for farmers

The problems facing farmers who grow fresh produce canbe separated into two main categories: the burden of a one-size-ts-all approach and the costs of compliance.

A preliminary 2009 studyby Californias Departmentof Fish and Game found thatless than 0.5 percent of thenearly 900 wild animals theysampled tested positive forE. coli 0157:H7; none of thepositives were deer, a specieslisted as risky under theLGMA


19/36


13

BurdenofaOne-Size-Fits-AllApproach

Many small and mid-sized farms rely on diversied produc-

tion the cultivation of many types of crops and/or poultryand livestock for economic sustainability and as a risk-management tool. Smaller-scale and diversied farms areput at a distinct disadvantage when practices most feasibleon large, monocropped farms are imposed on all farms.

For instance, LGMA guidelines instruct farmers to testcompost and other soil amendments before every appli-cation72 and to follow a risk assessment protocol beforeevery harvest.73 Small farm and conservation groups arguethat compliance is far easier for large farms growing andharvesting one crop than for farms growing multiple crops,

which apply soil amendments and harvest at staggered

times throughout the season.74

Requirements governing the use of soil amendments andprescribing a minimum distance between produce eldsand livestock grazing and cattle feedlots can also putdiversied farms at a disadvantage, especially farms thatuse well-managed manure from their own farm as a cropfertilizer. The LGMA, for example, requires that compostand other soil amendments containing animal manure bekept a minimum of 400 feet away from any cropland. Thisrequirement is most onerous for smaller-scale and diversi-ed farms.75

The standards developed by the industrys Food SafetyLeadership Council, which are publicly available, specify aminimum barrier of one-quarter mile between animal graz-ing areas and adjacent growing elds and a distance of onemile between cattle feedlots and the end of crop rows.76iv

While information on private industry standards is difcultto nd, one press report claims that Chiquita Fresh Expressalso requires a one-mile buffer between produce elds

iv These distances may be altered, but only if supported by a document-ed risk assessment that takes a number of factors into consideration.

and cattle feedlots.77 Even the federal GAPs audit programpenalizes farmers who have livestock near or adjacentto crop production areas by docking them points on theaudit.78

Although it is important to reduce the potential forE. coli0157:H7 and other pathogenic organisms to move intoelds, signicant distance requirements are not easilymet by small farms raising both crops and livestock in anintegrated system. Nor do these requirements consider theplight of farms adjacent to, or downstream from, feedlots,

whose placement they cannot control. California State Uni-versitys Dr. Mechel Paggi notes that even proponents of theLGMA nd extreme distance requirements to be unreason-able, excessive and scientically indefensible.79

It is possible to enhance produce safety without imposingunreasonable requirements on small and mid-sized farmsraising both crops and livestock. During a recent demon-stration audit conducted on a Minnesota farm, the stateauditor reported that federal GAPs auditors from Minne-sota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin are onlyconcerned with bare adjacent elds and nearby feedlots. Ifadjacent elds are vegetated, as with pasture, farms are notpenalized.80

In cases where farms are located near feedlots whose wastedisposal practices they cannot control, the farms should be

eligible to receive nancial assistance to defray the costsof mitigation measures which can include the plantingof vegetated buffers to catch dust, ies and polluted watercoming from the livestock facility and increased testing.The threat posed to produce grown near concentrated ani-mal feeding operations also illustrates the need for muchgreater regulation of air and water pollution from industrialanimal facilities.


20/36


14

ComplianceCosts

According to the latest Census of Agriculture, fewer thanhalf of all farms show positive net cash income from thefarm operation and approximately 55 percent of U.S. farms,including many small and mid-sized farms, depend onoff-farm income to cover farm expenses.81 As U.S. agricul-tural production becomes more concentrated among largefarms, smaller, independent farms are put at a competitivedisadvantage. Thus, when faced with the costs of comply-ing with ad hoc food safety protocols, farmers face difcultchoices. Many large produce operations have the stafngand nancial resources to comply with food safety require-ments and obtain third-party verication of their practices,

but compliance can be unaffordable for beginning farmers,those operating on thin or negative prot margins, or diver-sied farms growing multiple crops with staggered plantingand harvest times. Yet if these farms do not comply, they

risk losing access to important wholesale and institutionalmarkets.

Compliance costs often include:

Human resources/education/training : While the sanita-tion and worker hygiene practices required by buyers arestandard practice on many farms, the detailed safety plansand documentation now required by many buyers foodsafety protocols are not. This documentation takes time,

which can cut into protability and be especially burden-some for smaller farms. For example, some audits callfor frequent validation activities such as checking the

temperature on coolers holding freshly harvested produce something many producers already do but then gofurther by requiring daily or even hourly recordkeeping ina log. There can be a signicant learning curve and needfor training and technical assistance for farmers unfamiliar

with the documentation protocol.

Purchase of equipment/supplies: There is a trend towardrequiring data collection and other recordkeeping in elec-tronic form instead of paper. While many farmers may beable to easily meet this demand, others still may not own theelectronic technology or know how to operate the equipmentneeded to do so. According to the 2007 Census of Agricul-ture, only 33 percent of farm operations have high-speedInternet access; a full 43 percent of farm operations haveno Internet access at all.82 Other expenses could includeexpensive tracking technologies such as smart tags or radiofrequency identication chips and the scanners needed touse them. (See the sidebar on traceability, page 9.)

Implementation: As noted below, many farmers are devot-ing considerable resources to removing thousands of acresof hedgerows, buffer strips and other conservation mea-sures previously put in place because they could harbor

wildlife. They are also spending time and money to installrodent traps and to erect miles of fencing in order to com-ply with safety provisions related to animal control. Othercapital improvements may also be needed to bring packing-houses into compliance, upgrade employee hand-washingstations or add other necessary sanitation equipment.


21/36


15

Monitoring and Surveillance: Though many of thesefood safety protocols rely on a process-based approach tominimize risk of microbial contamination, some protocolscontain provisions that require irrigation and wash-waterto be tested at varying intervals for the presence of cer-

tain pathogens and pesticides. The federal GAPs audit, forexample, includes a requirement for water testing when

water that is used for crop irrigation, produce washingand employee use has not gone through a municipal watertreatment system.83 Large operations and those undercontract with produce companies may have on-site labs todo such testing; smaller farms will have to pay to have thetests processed by outside labs.

While costly, the testing required by some protocols doesnot always deliver clear food safety benets. The LGMAmandates repeated testing of water for generic (non-pathogenic)E. colirather than the more virulentE. coli0157:H7.84 Small farm and conservation groups argue thatsuch testing imposes steep costs on the grower while doinglittle to ensure food safety, since the presence of genericE.colidoes not always mean thatE. coli0157:H7 is present.85

Audits: Regardless of the food safety standard being used,the trend among wholesale buyers of fresh produce has

been toward requiring third-party audits, and in manycases specifying the private audit rm(s) whose certicationthey will accept. For GAPs audits, most states charge thefederal rate of $92 per hour per auditor.86 Rates charged

by private rms are more difcult to ascertain. Total audit

costs vary depending on the scope of the review, the size ofthe farm, the certifying entity and the distance a certierhas to travel to get to the farm. Costs are generally reportedas being in the range of $500 to $1500 per audit, not in-cluding preparation costs. But Dr. Mechel S. Paggi, Directorof the Center for Agricultural Business at California StateUniversity, has documented situations in which costs toproducers are much higher; his research nds that someproducers may pay as much as $8,500 to handle initialcosts associated with training, implementation and audits.

Another study documents the case of a farm that paid asmuch as $600 a day for private labs and audit services.87

Farmers who sell to more than one company must jugglemultiple sets of requirements and paying for multiple au-dits. As a result, farmers are experiencing what is referredto as audit fatigue. Farmers already paying for third-partyaudits to verify compliance with USDA Organic or othereco-label standards suffer additional burdens when foodsafety protocols are added to the mix. And as commodity-specic standards like the LGMA become more popular,diversied farmers may have to be certied by severalof them. Other commodity-specic protocols that have

been developed include an industry protocol for melons,modeled on the federal GAPs;88 two GAPs-based tomatoprotocols, one developed by the produce industry and oneadopted by the State of Florida;89 and a GAPs-based mush-room protocol developed by Penn State University.90 USDA

is currently considering new federal GAPs-based guidancedocuments for three specic crops: leafy greens, melonsand tomatoes.

Consequences for soil retention, waterquality and wildlife habitat

As noted above, practices that maintain and improve thenatural resources of farming operations have been foundto improve food safety by reducing pathogens in water,soil and dust that can reach fresh produce elds. Despitethis evidence, the LGMA and private food safety protocolsinclude wildlife and habitat control requirements that in

practice have led to the rapid dismantling of these vitalconservation practices.

The super metrics adopted by commercial buyers appear tobe hitting conservation efforts particularly hard. Researchcarried out with producers on Californias Central Coastnds that almost 40 percent of vegetable farmers who ad-opted conservation practices have since removed them dueto food safety pressure from buyers or auditors. Twenty-onepercent of all vegetable farmers removed practices speci-cally installed to improve water quality.91

Evidence suggests that wildlife has also been put at riskby food safety protocols. The LGMA requires farmers tolimit the presence of wildlife or domesticated animals thatmay carry pathogens onto the farm92 and to maximizethe distance between crops and vegetated areas that mayharbor wildlife.93 The federal GAPs audit asks if measures[have been] taken to reduce the opportunity for wild and/or domestic animals to enter crop production areas. 94 Thelanguage in the audit guidelines put out by Primus Labs, athird-party certier, asks, Are [there], or is there evidenceof, domestic animals, wild animals, grazing lands (includeshomes with hobby farms, and non-commercial livestock) inproximity to growing operation [...]? Have physical mea-

sures been put in place to restrain [these] animals [] andtheir waste from entering the growing area?95

Biodiversity advocates contend that in practice, this lan-guage and that of many private food safety standardsencourages farmers to target wildlife and habitat indis-criminately because they fear that otherwise, they will failthe audit. Many of the wildlife targeted are not carriers ofpathogens likeE. coli0157:H7. In a survey of Central Coastgrowers, California researcher Diana Stuart found thatthe majority of produce farmers are targeting wildlife with


22/36


16

fences, traps and/or poisoned bait, as well as mowing downvegetation that could serve as wildlife habitat. Stuart alsoreports that several farmers increased their use of coppersulfate in ponds and waterways; copper sulfate is common-ly applied to control or eliminate amphibian populations.96

The pressure producers receive from buyers forces them tochoose between signing a contract and preserving biodiver-sity on their farms.97 Eighty-one percent of the farmers whoresponded to Stuarts survey, in her words, indicated somelevel of disagreement with what they were being asked to doregarding wildlife, buffers and vegetation . [Many] sharedhow they feel pressured to adopt management practicesthat they do not agree with and that they believe are harm-ful to the environment. Some farmers simply refused tocomply and paid a hefty price: one interviewee reportedlosing $50,000 in sales because he would not comply withthe food safety standards required by his buyer.

Food safety protocols are also having a chilling effect onparticipation in federal conservation protocols. Stuartslatest research shows that the number of Central Coastfarmers applying for funding to implement environmentalpractices through the federal Environmental Quality Incen-tives Program (EQIP) dropped from 83 to 42 in recent

years, with food safety concerns cited as the most commonreason for withdrawing or not applying.98

Consequences for consumers

More and more, consumers want to know where and how

their food was grown. Though organic sales only accountfor 3.5 percent of all U.S. food sales, the industry has sus-tained growth rates of between 16 and 30 percent over thelast 15 years, signicantly higher than the rate of growth forconventional food products.99 Organic fruits and vegetablesmake up 37 percent of all organic food sales.100 Numerousstudies show that consumers are even more interested in

buying locally produced food than organic and will pay ahigher premium, especially if they believe their purchase

will help to keep a local farmer in business. 101

Unfortunately, as institutions and businesses try to respondto this demand, they are nding that food safety protocolscan make it difcult to support local food producers, espe-cially smaller-scale farms. This is not because the farmersare following unsafe practices, but because the require-ments are expensive and onerous and force farmers toabandon important conservation and biodiversity practices.

For instance, one 40-hospital health system in the south-western United States was recently surprised to learn thatalthough they thought they were supporting a range ofproduce farmers within their service area, the food safety

protocols in use by their produce distributor effectivelybarred all but the largest farmers from selling to them102because it required third-party certication of compliancewith the federal GAPs.103

While many institutions and other wholesale customers canstill buy directly from farms and do not require audit veri-cation of produce safety practices, the terms of many foodservice contracts generally prohibit direct purchases fromfarms, allowing only purchases made through approved

food distributors. In some cases, both the food servicecontractor and the distributor require adherence to producesafety protocols.

Sodexo, a company that dominates the contract food ser-vice sector serving hospitals, colleges and other institutionsrequires produce suppliers to pass either a federal or stateGAPs audit and ship their produce through only contracteddistributors.104 Two of the largest food distributors in theUnited States, Sysco and U.S. Foodservice, require third-party on-farm food safety audits, enforce the LGMA, andalso require additional testing and criteria beyond these

protocols.

105,106,107

Syscos food safety criteria apply to allready-to-eat produce purchased, which they dene as freshproduce, processed or eld packed, that is ready-to-eat inits existing condition, including lettuce, berries, tomatoes,celery, green onions and herbs.108 U.S. Foodservice require-ments apply to all produce grown for their produce line,Cross Valley Farms. Federal GAPs certication is also re-quired by a growing number of U.S. Foodservices regionaldistributors.109


23/36


17

Alternative Approaches at the FarmLevel

Direct Purchase Relationship-Based

ApproachThough some wholesale buyers are hesitant to buy fresh,

whole produce from a farmer without a food safety auditverication, many institutional buyers do not see a needfor this type of requirement when they purchase directlyfrom a farm or farm cooperative in their local community.Many feel more secure knowing the person who has grownthe product; in addition, reduced handling, cominglingand transportation time can help to reduce the potentialfor product damage and breaks in the cold chain that canheighten the risk of microbial contamination.110 Having adirect relationship with a grower also facilitates trace-backto the farm in the event of a problem.

Some wholesale buyers gain a greater degree of comfortfrom their ability to visit farms and see the farmers prac-tices rst hand. Doug Davis, director of food service forthe Burlington, Vermont, School District, increases hiscondence in the safety of local produce by visiting the13 different farms that he buys 15,000 pounds of producefrom each year.111 Greg Black, director of residential din-

ing for the University of Iowa in Iowa City,112 and BarbaraHartman, Chief of Nutrition and Food Service for the VAMedical Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia,113 also makea point of visiting their local farm suppliers and checkingout worker hygiene and other on-farm practices rst hand.

For other purchasers who may not have the time to visitfarms, the Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Managementstaff at Iowa State has created A Checklist for PurchasingLocal Produce that provides a list of questions for buyersto ask farmers in order to demonstrate that reasonable carehas been taken for procurement of foods.114 It was designedspecically for buyers of local produce for school mealprograms. The Oregon Department of Education speci-cally lists this resource as an example of a process that can

be used to demonstrate reasonable care in local producepurchases for the Oregon Farm to School program.115

Alternative food safety protocols forsmaller-scale, limited-resource andorganic production

There are a growing number of wholesale and institutionalbuyers for whom a visit to the farm is not enough; they haveexpressed interest in or require documented compliance

with a food safety protocol. To meet the buyers needs andthe needs of farmers selling to these markets, a number oforganizations with small-farm members have been engagedin creating food safety tools and protocols appropriate totheir membership. These include:

AppalachianHarvestGAPMirrorProgramforOrganicProduceProduction

In response to numerous requests from retail customersfor some kind of assurance that farmers were taking stepsto minimize microbial risks in fresh produce, AppalachianHarvest a network of certied organic family farmers insouthwest Virginia and northeast Tennessee developeda federal GAPs look-alike program that also addressesorganic production and sustainability issues.116 If farm-ers want to sell under the Appalachian Harvest label, theymust complete federal GAPs-based farm safety training anddevelop a food safety plan that complements their organic

system plan. Appalachian Harvest provides mandatorytraining sessions on these GAPs and carries out its ownspot audits on a random basis. There is no charge or fee forthe training or audit. Appalachian Harvest also providessample forms and logs for farmers to use. They have alsoarranged a group rate of $20 per water sample to enablefarmers to comply with their mandatory water testingprotocol.117 This program has been in place for more than a

year and several local, regional and national supermarketsaccept produce marketed through this program.118


24/36


18

CommunityAlliancewithFamilyFarmersFederalGAPs-basedSelf-AuditProtocolforSmallandMid-ScaleFarms

California-based Community Alliance with Family Farm-ers has created a voluntary federal GAPs-based programappropriate for certied organic and non-organic small tomid-sized family farms in the region, especially those withlimited resources. The protocol takes the form of a Stan-dard Operating Procedure, which when adopted becomesa farms food safety plan. The procedures are still in draftform and generically apply to row, tree and small fruitcrops. To measure food safety performance, farmers whofollow this protocol would conduct semi-annual self audits once before the growing season begins and once duringthe growing season. Unlike other food safety protocols, thedraft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are writtento encourage use of vegetated buffers and hedgerows as a

means to improve food safety and provide science-based,animal-specic methods for addressing wildlife intrusion.The SOPs also discourage the use of municipal biosolidsand encourage use of composted manure. Farmers are pro-

vided sample forms and monitoring logs. 119

MaineOrganicFarmersandGardenersAssociation

In response to problems diversied Maine organic farm-ers had with implementing the federal GAPs, the MaineOrganic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) hasdeveloped its own program and the MOFGA CerticationServices board recently approved offering it as an add-on

to its organic certication program.120

The MOFGA approach is a Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Point (HACCP)-based rather than GAPs-based ap-proach. HACCP is a process that was initially developed toprevent astronauts from becoming sick from food-borne ill-ness while in space. The process is based on the identica-

tion of potential food safety hazards that can occur duringcommercial-scale processing, transport and preparation offood, so that key preventative actions can be taken at Criti-cal Control Points (CCPs) to reduce or eliminate risk. Use ofa HACCP-based approach in food processing is required byfederal law for juice, seafood, meat and poultry processingfacilities, but voluntary elsewhere. Using a HACCP-basedapproach to on-farm food safety is unusual because theprocess was originally designed for food processing. In theprocessing arena, the implementation of HACCP has beencriticized as burdensome to small processors and insuf-cient for large processors that should be receiving muchgreater government oversight.

The MOFGA HACCP-based approach has

Documents

Bridging the GAPs: Strategies to Improve Produce Safety, Preserve Farm Diversity and Strengthen Local Food Systems