**Prepared Statement**

**Robert J. Whitaker Ph.D.**

**Vice President of Processing and Technology**

**NewStar Fresh Foods**

**Salinas, California**

**on behalf of**

**United Fresh Produce Association**

**Before the**

**U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture**

**Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Subcommittee**

**May 15, 2007**

**Washington, DC**

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Dr.
Robert Whitaker and I am Vice President of Processing & Technology for
NewStar Fresh Foods, a fresh and fresh-cut vegetable company based in
Salinas, California. Our company produces a variety of conventional and
organic spinach, spring mix and blended baby leaf salads and specialties
for foodservice distributors, retailers and private label products for a
number of retail customers.

I received my Ph.D. in biology from the State University of New York at
Binghamton in 1982, and have spent my career in microbial and plant
biochemical genetics, the use of biotechnology to develop new plant
varieties, and management of food safety/quality assurance operation in
the processing of fresh value added vegetables. In the past five years,
I have been responsible for overall process operations of our company's
processing business and overseen the construction of two state-of
the-art value added vegetable processing facilities.

I am also past chairman of the United Fresh Produce Association, and
provide comments here today on behalf of our association as well as
myself. Our association is led by a Board of Directors representing
leaders from every sector of the industry, a 50-member Food Safety and
Technology Council including scientific experts from our member
companies, and a staff with expertise in food microbiology, plant
sciences, and nutrition and health. I want to compliment the committee
today for holding this very timely hearing given the ongoing focus on
food safety across the produce industry.

Due to food safety issues across our industry, the last few years and
especially the last 9 months since the spinach crisis have been at times
frustrating and confusing, but simultaneously an encouraging and
exhilarating period of change and reflection for the produce industry.
As we have heard today, we have been through a food safety crisis that
has caused death and illness, eroded consumer confidence in our
products, cost our industry millions of dollars in product and
opportunities lost and precipitated an avalanche of attention and a keen
focus on produce food safety by the media, consumers, customers, growers
and processors. But, these events have also catalyzed unprecedented
action on the food safety front. I have been asked to speak today about
how our industry has changed with regard to food safety, what changes
still need to be made in the near term and where we go from here.

As I sat down to prepare my testimony, I realized just how difficult
these questions were. Our industry is a complex and fragmented patchwork
of large, medium and small companies. It is and has been difficult to
initiate a sea change with regard to food safety across such a
fragmented and independent thinking industry. It is akin to changing the
direction of a large ocean liner on a dime to miss looming icebergs,
difficult to do but necessary to ensure that our entire industry is
taking all needed steps to assure the safety of our products.

So we find ourselves as an industry truly engaged with a wide array of
very positive activities and initiatives to improve the food safety of
our products:

-   A true awareness and sensitivity to food safety has permeated the
    industry at every level from grower to harvester to processor,
    shipper and customer. Too often in the past there has been uneven or
    inconsistent attention paid to food safety with some producers
    rigorously implementing food safety programs and others only talking
    about food safety or ignoring it altogether.

-   The buying community has begun to ask more questions about their
    suppliers' food safety programs. With the events that transpired
    last September, some have even begun to realize that
    growers/shippers/processors are more than just suppliers, but
    partners in their corporate identity and brand equity. Many others
    are still grappling with how to deal with food safety issues along
    such a complex supply chain and the structural changes that
    requires.

-   Certainly, the acronyms: FDA, DHS, CDC and others have become more
    common in our everyday conversations and business planning.

-   General Good Agricultural Practices or GAPs have morphed into
    commodity specific guidance for tomatoes, melons and leafy greens.
    Commodity specific guidance for lettuce and leafy greens has now
    evolved into GAP Metrics for leafy greens which represent our best
    attempt, with significant input from FDA and the California
    Department of Health Services, to provide some quantitative
    measurements to verify enhanced GAP practices. GAP metrics have now
    become the technical basis for a marketing agreement in California
    for leafy greens which while still in its formative stages, is
    moving rapidly as a tool that may help institute a culture of change
    and spawn a similar national commitment to food safety. Other
    commodity groups such as tomatoes and melons are currently
    revisiting their commodity-specific GAP documents to bolster their
    strength in risk management.

-   The process of developing commodity-specific guidance for melons and
    tomatoes and GAP metrics in California for leafy greens has brought
    about several important revelations for our industry:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There is a general lack of sound scientific data we can use to guide
    the development of certain food safety best practices including
    water management, compost usage, buffer zones for wild and
    domesticated animals. We do not have the science to permit a
    data-based understanding of the basic biology and the genetic and
    physiological plant/bacterium interactions of pathogens like *E.
    coli* O157:H7, Salmonella and Shigella.

-   Absent sound science, we have had to use what data is available to
    us and our very best professional judgment to promulgate risk
    management strategies and metrics aimed toward improving our
    industry's food safety performance.

-   On a positive note, we have shown that our industry can come
    together to share food safety information and cooperatively develop
    improved practices for food safety. The associations represented
    before the committee today as well as others have served as a
    fulcrum to organize productive discussions and hammer out decisions.
    This is an encouraging sign for our industry as we move forward.

So we have seen a great deal of change over the last several months with
regard to food safety, but as my kids used to say when they were young,
"Are we there yet?" Have we solved the problem? I would suggest we are
only in the first stages of the culture change that our industry must go
through with regard to food safety. It is one thing to hold meetings to
develop improved practices, testify before Congress, share our
collective experiences on food safety, and hold town hall meetings on
food safety in the production community, but we must change our culture
and place food safety as a national priority:

-   As an industry, we must live our food safety programs every day. We
    have begun to turn that ocean liner but the icebergs are still out
    there. We have to make GAP and GAP metrics more than just nice
    notebooks of information on our office bookshelves. This industry
    will make some tough decisions going forward in 2007 in order to
    manage food safety risks more effectively. As an industry, we are
    only as good as our weakest link and it is all of our
    responsibilities to strengthen those links. We have to elevate the
    emphasis on food safety throughout the supply chain from grower to
    end user. This is not just a grower or processor issue, this is an
    industry issue that reaches up to buyers, consumers, regulators and
    researchers. I have seen some amazing progress by growers,
    harvesters and processors over the last few months. I have met with
    growers who, for the first time in the 10 years I have been in this
    business, have really taken on food safety as a challenge and put
    risk management practices into place that they would not have
    dreamed of only a few months ago. Growers are using the ingenuity
    and energy they are noted for and are tackling food safety as a
    challenge that must be met.

-   As a nation, we need your help in driving scientific research to
    help prevent future outbreaks. I mentioned earlier that we have
    found ourselves without sufficient data to base risk management
    decisions on and we have not really been able to learn much of
    practical use regarding the root causes of recent food safety
    outbreaks. In fact, the recent investigations surrounding the
    September spinach outbreak raised more questions than they answered.
    The current scientific literature provides some directional
    information developed largely via lab-based systems, but is largely
    devoid of real world agricultural data developed using pathogenic
    strains, current lettuce or spinach varieties and growth conditions
    that resemble key growing areas or seasons.

> However, it is extremely encouraging to see researchers around the
> country stepping up to study produce food safety. Recently, over 100
> R&D proposals dealing with various aspects of food safety were
> reviewed by a select USDA panel on which I was privileged to serve.
> Many dealt with critical questions for our industry such as:

-   Where are the pathogens coming from?

-   How do they attach themselves to produce?

-   How can we kill them or wash them off? And,

-   Once in the environment, how long do they persist?

> Many of our associations and individual companies are stepping up to
> fund research, and that is commendable. However, there is still
> minimal money available today to fund these important projects.
> Honestly, in order to reach the critical funding levels, we must have
> governments help; a significant increase in government funding toward
> food safety research is needed. We have proposed a \$26.5 million
> annual research package devoted to produce safety research, a small
> price to help prevent contamination and restore public confidence in
> produce that is critical for them to consume for their better health.
> Specific produce safety research that is field oriented and
> implemented to find practical solutions is critically important, and
> we urge the committee to devote specific funding to this objective in
> the Farm Bill, and to support the appropriators in their efforts.
>
> As one small step forward, United Fresh's Board of Directors approved
> last week that the association move forward with a project that would
> organize a confidential database of microbiological testing data for
> the industry. This blinded database would allow for the consolidation
> of ongoing testing information on an industrywide basis. This is an
> effective way to establish baselines that could be measured over time
> and provide benchmarks against which companies could measure their own
> tests. Similar industrywide efforts in the past by the beef and dairy
> industries have proved extremely valuable to regulators and industry
> alike.

-   The single biggest change we can make in our industry to stimulate
    the food safety culture change we need is for the buying community
    to recognize and only purchase from those suppliers that have a keen
    focus on food safety, have implemented GAPs, embraced the GAP
    metrics, employ sound risk management principals and science-based
    decision making to operate their businesses daily and who continue
    to push the boundaries to make their products safer.

> Make no mistake, I am [not]{.underline} suggesting that the buying
> community set food safety standards for growing, harvesting or
> processing, or in any way add to the multiple, and often conflicting
> requirements that already exist. I would implore them not to set up
> specialized audits in an attempt to separate themselves within the
> marketplace based on food safety.
>
> Rather, produce food safety audits should all be based off the same
> set of guidelines, scientific principles and existing regulations. No
> audit can make our products safer by itself. They are only snapshots
> in time of existing food safety programs. Rather, I am suggesting that
> buying groups consistently and without exception elevate food safety
> to the same level of importance as quality and price when making
> purchase decisions. This requires knowing our suppliers, understanding
> their food safety programs and separating out those who "talk" about
> food safety from those who "do" food safety every day. I get tired of
> customers who call and request our "food safety certificate." What is
> that? Food safety programs are not gold embroidered certificates that
> guarantee safety and when received can be filed away. They are
> multi-layered risk management strategies, verification procedures and
> people devoted to making the safest products possible. Buyers who do
> not know these details about their suppliers' food safety practices
> are not doing their part in the food safety continuum. By the way,
> processors who don't know their growers' food safety status also need
> to step up to this responsibility.
>
> Recognize, also, that food safety does not come without a cost. Land
> left fallow because it represents potential food safety risks,
> remedial actions enacted to eliminate risks, water testing and other
> specific food safety activities cost money, and these costs need to be
> part of the business discussion between suppliers and customers.
> Believe me, a collaborative supplier/customer approach will do more to
> accelerate the development of a culture of food safety and promote the
> adoption of innovative thinking to achieve safer produce than most any
> other activity in this arena.

The last area I was asked to comment on was to suggest what lies ahead
for our industry in relation to food safety. I have no magic crystal
ball, but I can say that food safety will continue to be the leading
priority for our industry as we fight to rebuild consumer confidence in
our products, improve our relationships with regulators and create
constructive dialogue and food safety partnerships with our customers.
More specifically:

-   We will learn a great deal in the coming months from the
    finalization and implementation of the leafy greens marketing
    agreement and the GAP metrics they are based on. I think we will
    learn what works and what is most important about the new GAP
    metrics. I feel confident, from all that I have heard, that we will
    be able to fine tune the GAP metrics as we gain more scientific
    information and data and perhaps focus our resources on new actions
    and mediation steps that will make our product safer.

-   We will also likely see a coalescing of food safety programs to
    drive consistency and uniformity across our industry. We are working
    closely with industry groups representing multiple regions of the
    United States as well as importing countries, the FDA, USDA and the
    Association of Food and Drug Officials to develop a consistent
    regulatory approach for produce safety. No matter how hard our
    industry works, public confidence ultimately depends upon government
    as the final health and regulatory authority to determine proper
    food safety standards and ensure that they are being met. Let me
    review three key principles we believe to be critical for our
    nation's food safety regulatory framework.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Consistent Produce Food Safety Standards --** First, we believe
    produce safety standards must be consistent for an individual
    produce commodity grown anywhere in the United States, or imported
    into this country. Consumers must have the confidence that safety
    standards are met no matter where the commodity is grown or
    processed. Because of the variation in our industry's growing and
    harvesting practices in different climates and regions, flexibility
    is very appropriate and necessary. For example, some production
    areas use deep wells for irrigation while others use river water
    supplied from dams. Some farms use sprinkler irrigation, others use
    a drip system laid along the ground, and still others use water in
    the furrows between rows of produce. But the common factor must be
    that all uses of water for irrigation must meet safety standards
    that protect the product. That must be true whether the produce is
    grown in California, Florida, Wisconsin or Mexico.

> We strongly applaud industry groups in different states and regions
> that are working to enhance local practices. Their work demonstrates
> the industry's commitment to do all we can to enhance safe growing and
> handling practices. But to build consumer trust, strong scientific
> standards we're developing for one region can only be successful if
> applied consistently across the industry.

-   **Federal Oversight and Responsibility --** Second, we believe
    achieving consistent produce safety standards across the industry
    requires strong federal government oversight and responsibility in
    order to be most credible to consumers and equitable to producers.

> We believe that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is the
> public health agency charged by law with ensuring the safety of the
> nation's produce supply, must determine appropriate nationwide safety
> standards in an open and transparent process, with full input from the
> states, industry, academia, consumers and all stakeholders. We are
> strong advocates for food safety standards based on sound science and
> a clear consensus of expert stakeholders.
>
> But in a situation where science tells us there can be no zero risk,
> and there is no cooking step for our product, the public must be able
> to trust in an independent, objective government body as the ultimate
> arbiter of what is safe enough. In the future, we must be able to
> stand side-by-side with government to reassure the public that
> together, we have done everything necessary to implement and comply
> with strong mandatory government standards to protect public health.
>
> Let me say a word here specifically about USDA's role in helping our
> industry enhance safety. USDA is a strong ally and offers a number of
> means to assist the produce industry in safely growing, handling and
> processing fresh produce. First, as a diverse agricultural industry,
> marketing orders have been an extremely useful means of setting
> quality standards, conducting research and promoting specific
> commodity groups. These orders fall under the Agricultural Marketing
> Service of USDA, and are increasingly being looked at as a potential
> means to stimulate good food safety practices as well. Growers of a
> commodity can come together and vote to require specific practices
> that then become mandatory for all growers of that commodity.
>
> In addition, USDA through AMS offers several auditing programs that
> assist the industry in measuring good agricultural practices, good
> handling practices, and HACCP programs in processing plants. These are
> good education and training programs, as well as a means to measure
> individual operators' understanding and implementation of food safety
> practices.
>
> We believe these programs can be very helpful, and are an important
> element in enhancing food safety systems. Yet, while these programs
> are an important means for specific sectors of the industry to enhance
> performance, long-term public trust requires that FDA set the most
> appropriate regulatory safety standards. That is simply a call that
> industry cannot make alone.
>
> And, FDA must have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that industry
> is complying with these standards. That does not mean that FDA has to
> hire 5,000 new inspectors to visit every farm in America and travel
> around the world. But it does mean that FDA must have relationships
> with other governments, USDA, and state agriculture and regulatory
> officials to ensure that compliance is taking place. Cooperative
> agreements between FDA and the states have been extremely effective in
> providing oversight of food safety standards.
>
> Our analysis is that FDA has the regulatory authority today to
> promulgate any needed rules and regulations, issue guidance that
> compels industry action, enter into agreements with states to support
> field investigations, and generally set all necessary standards to
> protect the public health.

-   **Commodity-Specific Scientific Approach --** Finally, we believe
    produce safety standards must allow for commodity-specific food
    safety practices based on the best available science. In a highly
    diverse industry that is more aptly described as hundreds of
    different commodity industries, one size clearly does not fit all.

> For example, the food safety requirements of products grown close to
> the ground in contact with soil are far different from those grown on
> trees. And, the large majority of produce commodities have never been
> linked to a foodborne disease. Every produce commodity is different,
> and our food safety regulatory approach must contain needed scientific
> flexibility to address specific commodities differently based on their
> unique production and handling practices.
>
> This will be an extremely important point in looking at produce
> safety. Government and industry alike must be careful that broad
> strokes do not result in requirements that should not apply to
> specific commodities, and do nothing to enhance safety. Taking a
> general approach would be far too easy to add regulatory costs and
> burdens to sectors where those requirements are unneeded, without
> doing anything to enhance safety where most critical.
>
> We support the approach currently taken by FDA to establish broad Good
> Agricultural Practices (GAPs) applicable to all producers at farm
> level. FDA's 1998 GAPs guidance continues to provide an effective
> roadmap for producers, and cooperative agreements with USDA and states
> can assure compliance with these guidelines based on today's science
> and as they are modified by FDA in the future to reflect increasing
> knowledge.
>
> We also support FDA's scientific approach to develop
> commodity-specific GAPs where there is a demonstrated need. This must
> be a scientific process, looking at outbreak history and potential
> risk factors to ensure that resources are not diluted trying to
> address hundreds of commodities that have never been linked to
> illnesses. These principles are embodied in commodity specific
> guidance documents that are being developed for tomatoes, melons,
> leafy greens and green onions, as well as FDA's already published
> guidance document for fresh sprouts.

-   Over time, I believe the industry will be able to employ science
    based approaches that are just now being developed to minimize risk.
    Research that is just now in the formative stages will be brought
    forward over the next 3-4 years. As we learn more about genes that
    *E. coli* O157:H7 expresses to live on the surface of a lettuce
    leaf, we can develop mitigation strategies to prevent that
    expression and perhaps eliminate the bacterium. Exciting and similar
    research is also underway with Salmonella species and tomatoes. As
    we begin to understand how pathogens attach themselves to produce,
    we can develop new sanitation strategies to more effectively remove
    them in the field or at processing.

-   I think the most forward looking retailers, foodservice companies
    and club stores will begin to work more closely with their suppliers
    not to dictate food safety practices but to agree on mutual
    standards and data requirements and performance expectations. This
    will ultimately help control costs, eliminate some redundancies,
    create focus and foster safer products.

I believe that food safety will become an integral thread in the fabric
of our industry's culture. You can see it happening now starting with
forward thinking growers who have stood up to embrace food safety
practices. I have already described some examples of this and I have had
the opportunity in the last year to attend two different food safety
meetings organized by individual growers who brought in experts in *E.
coli* biology and water management and quality to discuss these aspects
of food safety so they could better understand how to make their
operations safer.

You can see it with harvesters who have designed and built harvest
equipment constructed of sanitizable materials and you can see it with
processors who are investing heavily in fine tuning food safety
practices, testing improved wash systems and sanitation programs and
supporting industry associations on research and training programs.

We have come a long way in the last several months regarding food safety
and we do have some tough road ahead. There will be more changes and
pressures but, in the end, this will only strengthen our industry. We
produce products that are healthy and desired by consumers and we will
work together to make our products safer, restore consumer confidence
and move forward. As long as we remember that people, kids,
grandparents, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers eat our products,
public safety has to be our number one priority. When we use that to
guide our everyday actions, we will be successful in firmly establishing
and growing a culture of food safety in our industry. Thank you.