U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–684 PDF 2008

REVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY RESPONSE 

TO THE SAFETY OF FRESH AND 

FRESH-CUT PRODUCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE 

AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 15, 2007

Serial No. 110–23

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

www.agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

Ranking Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘Randy’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, California 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

Ranking Minority Member 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

KEVIN MCCARTHY, CALIFORNIA

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

KEITH JONES, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Minnesota, prepared statement .......................................................................... 56

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, prepared statement .......................................................................... 59

WITNESSES

Day, Mr. Lloyd, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................................................. 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

Acheson, Dr. David, M.D. F.R.C.P., Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66

Whitaker, Dr. Robert J., Ph.D., Vice President, Processing and Technology, 

NewStar Fresh Foods, LLC, on behalf of United Fresh Produce Association, 

Salinas, California ................................................................................................ 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77

Pezzini, Mr. Joe, Vice President of Operations, Ocean Mist Farms, on behalf 

of Western Growers Association, Castroville, California .................................. 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85

Roberts, Dr. Martha R., Ph.D., Personal Assistant to the Director, Florida 

Experiment Station, University of Florida, on behalf of the Florida Tomato 

Exchange, Tallahassee, Florida .......................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91

Christie, Ms. Lorna, Vice President, Produce Marketing Association, Newark, 

Delaware ............................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99

DeWaal, Ms. Caroline Smith, Director of Food Safety, Center for Science 

in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C. ........................................................... 35

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Day, Mr. Lloyd, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .................................................. 113

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW THE INDUSTRY RESPONSE TO THE SAFETY OF FRESH AND 

FRESH-CUT PRODUCE 

TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC

AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis Cardoza 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Cardoza, Etheridge, Davis, Barrow, Gillibrand, 

Neugebauer, Kuhl, McCarthy, and Conaway. 

Staff present: Adam Durand, Scott Kuschmider, John Riley, 

Sharon Rusnak, Debbie Smith, John Goldberg, Pete Thomson, and 

Jamie Weyer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CARDOZA. Good morning. We will call to order this hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review the industry response to the safety of fresh and fresh-cut 

produce, and it will all now come to order. I want to thank you all 

for attending this important hearing, and I want to thank the industry and also the consumer groups for being here today. 

This hearing is being called because maintaining the integrity of 

our nation’s food supply is of paramount concern to us at this time. 

Not only mine as chairman of this subcommittee but as a consumer 

and as a parent as well. Americans spend over $1 trillion in food 

per year, both at home and in restaurants, and they place their 

faith in the agricultural industry and the federal and state regulatory agencies to ensure that those products are safe to consume. 

Generally, our food supply consistently meets high benchmarks 

for success in safety, but there are, of course, instances where the 

system fails, whether it be spinach, tomatoes, meat, poultry, or 

countless other products, foodborne illness can strike viciously and 

without warning. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I should know. I was personally affected 

by the salmonella outbreak in peanut butter earlier this year. So 

one can imagine my displeasure to read recent reports that the 

FDA knew this particular peanut butter plant had a spotty safety 

2

record, yet they continued to certify its compliance with food safety 

measures. 

Part of the problem may be that there are currently 15 different 

regulatory agencies tasked with monitoring the safety and security 

of our food supply. From the Food and Drug Administration to 

USDA to Health and Human Services, each year thousands of federal employees inspect, verify, and approve all aspects of the food 

distribution chain. 

Together with their state counterparts, these agencies create arguably the safest food supply in the world. However, when the rare 

crack in the system occurs, the overall integrity and consistency of 

food safety in this country can be devastated. Families across the 

country who consume tainted products are unfairly put in harm’s 

way, and the general public’s confidence in the food supply is shaken to the core. 

Furthermore, farmers and processors are often unable to recover 

from the financial strains of severe market disruptions from the 

outbreaks. None of these consequences were more apparent than 

during the September 2006 E.coli outbreak associated with the consumption of fresh-cut spinach. Many in this room were directly involved in these days and weeks that followed that crisis. This response to the spinach outbreak was a wakeup call for both the federal government and the fresh produce industry. 

For the government, it became painfully obvious that the continued lack of support for specialty crops in the farm and food safety 

programs is taking its toll. Specialty crops have grown to nearly 50 

percent of the farm gate value of American agriculture, yet very 

few federal dollars are spent on shoring up research, food safety, 

or best management practices for the industry. 

If we are serious about preventing further outbreaks, this equity 

can no longer be ignored. For the produce industry, while I must 

applaud them for fully cooperating with the E.coli investigation 

and trace-back attempts, it was apparent that previous practices 

designed to prevent outbreaks of foodborne illnesses fell short. 

The fresh produce industry has rested for too long on ill-defined 

and unchecked management practices that left holes in the accountability of the entire system. However, there has been significant progress by the fresh produce industry, and their actions 

should serve as a model to their fellow commodities who have also 

fallen short in recent times. 

Shortly after the spinach crisis, the affected industries in California organized the California Spinach and Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, which licenses first handlers to certify compliance with best management practices for fresh produce. The agreement is a solid first step to strengthening industry practices and 

to quell consumer doubt in domestic fresh produce. 

But food safety standards for fresh produce should not be limited 

to just those producers and handlers in California. If proven to be 

effective, the best management practices in California’s Spinach 

and Leafy Green Marketing Agreement should serve as a nationwide model for improving food safety. 

I am pleased to have Joe Pezzini, Vice President of Ocean Mist 

Farms and chairman of the agreement here to elaborate on food 

safety measures included in this agreement. 

3

Overall, I believe consumer confidence in fresh produce is back 

and stronger than ever. Americans recognize and appreciate the 

benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables in their diets and have responded well to the efforts of regulators and the industry to correct 

flaws in their food safety surveillance. But unfortunately it will 

only take one more incident to break down this progress, to move 

us back to square one, and to revive the unproven claims that our 

food supply is susceptible to dangerous pathogens. 

I remain extremely concerned that our food safety oversight is 

spread amongst too many different agencies, creating a systematic 

lack of responsibility and ownership over the food supply. I believe 

that one and only one federal agency should have responsibility for 

protecting the food supply. 

The USDA currently has a better relationship with state agencies and other officials on the ground level, and there seems to be 

an inherent lack of understanding at FDA about the unique growing practices of boutique crops like spinach, lettuce, and other fresh 

produce, which may have significantly hindered their ability to 

react quickly and confidently in a spinach crisis. 

A complete discussion of domestic food safety and reform should 

include a thorough examination of feasibility of USDA’s control 

over this area in fruits and vegetables, in my opinion. The spinach 

crisis was not the first E.coli outbreak, and it certainly will not be 

the last. But as members of Congress, we have a duty and responsibility to carefully review these situations and to look for ways to 

improve the responses at the federal government level. 

I hope that we can use this hearing to gain a better understanding of the industry response to recent food safety concerns 

and continue the dialogue on strengthening domestic food safety 

compliance. I appreciate the witnesses appearing here today, and 

I look forward to their comments. 

With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member, my good 

friend, Mr. Randy Neugebauer of Texas. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Consumers in the 

United States are fortunate to have such a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of fresh fruits and vegetables. Sometimes we take 

for granted the many fresh produce choices available in our grocery 

store aisles and farmers’ markets. 

It takes dedicated farmers, handlers, and packers to supply us 

with this variety and high quality of food, and I appreciate those 

of you who have taken time away from your busy operations to be 

with us today. Just as it takes a full supply chain for growers to 

supply consumers with fresh produce, it also takes an entire industry to make sure that the product is safe. 

You have a good track record when it comes to producing safe, 

high quality fruits and vegetables. And the industry has responded 

quickly to address problems on those occasions when food safety 

concerns have arisen. As producers and handlers know firsthand, 

the viability of your industry requires that you produce and sell a 

safe product that consumers remain confident in the safety of your 

product. 

4

I applaud produce growers and handlers for pursuing industrylead marketing agreements, promoting best practices, and supporting research to increase the knowledge of how to keep fresh 

vegetables and fruits safe. Others have suggested that extensive 

federal programs regulation from the farm to the table would be a 

better approach. However, I am concerned that a rigid regulatory 

approach may not allow the industry the flexibility to adapt to 

practices and to new technologies. It may hinder growers’ ability to 

produce the very crops that they are trying to sell. Allowing the industry to set research-backed standards and practices and form cooperative marketing agreements can be an effective means to be 

able to ensure food safety when backed by government verification 

that standards are sound and being followed. 

I would like to hear more from AMS and FDA as well as the industry panelists on how all segments can best work together and 

make effective use of resources so that consumers can continue to 

be assured of the safety and quality of fresh produce that they buy 

for their families. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. The chair would request that other members submit their opening statements for the 

record so that witnesses may begin their testimony and we ensure 

that there is ample time for questions, and we will do our very best 

to make sure that every member has time to ask their questions 

today. 

I anticipate that a number of the rest of the members of the committee shall show up throughout the panel’s presentation. There 

are a number of other hearings that are going on as we speak. 

I would like to call up and welcome the first panel to the table. 

We have with us today Administrator Lloyd Day from the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

in Washington, D.C. Thank you, Mr. Day. And also Mr. David Acheson, M.D., Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection, U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration from Rockville, Maryland. Thank you, 

Mr. Acheson, for being here with us today. Gentlemen, if you would 

please begin your testimony, and welcome to the committee. Mr. 

Day, you are up first. 

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR LLOYD DAY, AGRICULTURAL 

MARKETING SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. DAY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, good 

morning and thank you for the invitation to appear before you 

today. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you a brief overview of the activities and services of USDA’s Agricultural and Marketing Service, AMS, and to be here with my colleague, Dr. David 

Acheson, from FDA. 

As you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for the food safety of horticultural products. At the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food 

Safety and Inspection Service holds similar responsibility for meat, 

poultry, and egg products. The mission of AMS is to facilitate the 

strategic marketing of products in the domestic and international 

marketplace. AMS is not a food safety agency. 

5

The agency does respond, however, to requests from producers to 

support their product quality control efforts. For example, producers have asked AMS to establish programs to provide independent verification that FDA guidance is being followed. For 

many decades, AMS has offered voluntary, user-funded, product 

quality grading services as well as plant sanitation reviews based 

on FDA’s good manufacturing practices. 

In recent years, AMS has expanded these traditional services 

through the addition of audit-based programs based on internationally recognized quality management system protocols. Some of 

these newer programs incorporate food safety related elements reflecting market demand for greater food safety assurance as a quality attribute of products being marketed. 

In the horticulture or specialty crops area, AMS product grading, 

plant sanitation review, and audit-based programs are conducted 

with a Federal workforce of some 800 full and part-time employees. 

Additionally, AMS has cooperative agreements with nearly all state 

departments of agriculture, under which their fruit and vegetable 

inspectors receive training and are granted federal licenses to assist in the delivery of AMS services and programs, adding another 

3,500 skilled professionals to the agency’s deployable workforce. 

One recent example of an audit-based program fashioned around 

food safety related objectives is the Good Agricultural Practices and 

Good Handling Practices Audit Verification Program. This program 

assists farms and packing houses through verification of their adherence to FDA’s Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. It is a uniform nationwide 

program that is voluntarily funded by user fees. Primary users of 

this program include fresh fruit and vegetable growers, packers, 

shippers, and others in the marketing chain. 

Currently audits are performed at 317 farms and facilities in 32 

states and Puerto Rico, with larger numbers of participants in California, Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, and New Jersey. 

Nearly 100 fruit, vegetable and other specialty crops are covered. 

AMS staff and AMS licensed and trained state employees perform 

the on-site audits. 

Another example of an audit-based program offered by AMS is 

a Qualified Through Verification, or QTV, program that assists 

fresh cut fruit and vegetable processors in managing food safety 

risks. There are currently nine fresh cut plants participating in the 

QTV program. 

QTV is a voluntary, user fee funded program that provides third 

party verification of the fresh cut processors adherence to Hazard 

Analysis Critical Control Point, HACCP, Plan. Under the QTV program, processors identify and document critical points in their production process, measure performance of their operation at these 

critical points, and position themselves to detect and direct any deficiencies that might emerge. 

AMS staff involved in administering this program have received 

training in HACCP and audit procedures. Authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, marketing orders and 

agreements assist farmers by allowing them to collectively work to 

solve marketing problems. Industries which voluntarily enter into 

6

these programs in this way choose to have federal oversight of certain aspects of their operations. 

Marketing orders, supported through industry referenda, are 

binding on individuals and businesses that are classified as handlers in the geographic area covered by the order. Marketing agreements are binding only on handlers who are voluntary signatories 

of an agreement. Presently there are 30 active marketing agreement and order programs covering 25 specialty crop commodities. 

Fees are collected from handlers to cover local costs of administrating these programs. 

Under federal marketing orders, USDA considers food safety to 

be a quality characteristic of regulated fruit, vegetable, and specialty crops, and that the absence of harmful pathogens or toxins 

is a characteristic of higher quality products. 

In response to producer requests for support of their product 

quality control efforts, AMS has incorporated food safety-related requirements in marketing agreements and marketing order regulations for many years. For example, testing for aflatoxin has been 

required for U.S. grown peanuts since 1965, originally under a Federal marketing agreement and subsequently through separate legislation administered by AMS. 

A large majority of current active Federal marketing order programs include minimum requirements with most U.S. grade standards having criteria related to food safety. For example, lack of 

mold, insects, foreign material, et cetera. Since 1961, for example, 

the marketing order for California prunes has had inspection and 

fumigation requirements relative to live insect infestations. Similar 

requirements for insects as well as the presence of dirt or mold 

have been in place for California raisins since 1977. 

Beginning in 2005, pistachio handlers were required to test all 

nuts destined for human consumption for aflatoxin, which at 

present, would lower the quality and market value of those pistachios. Also, for the upcoming 2007/2008 crop, almond handlers 

will be required to treat almonds prior to treat shipment to reduce 

the chance of salmonella contamination, a health hazard that can 

lower the quality and value of almonds shipped to the market. 

Following the September 2006 E.coli outbreak linked to fresh 

spinach grown in the Salinas Valley, the California Department of 

Food and Agriculture began designing a state marketing agreement 

that would require adherence to good handling practices for most 

companies involved in shipping leafy greens in the state. The California Spinach and Leafy Green Marketing Agreement became effective in February 2007. 

AMS has cooperated with CDFA in the verification aspects of the 

agreement, including the design and delivery of training for the 

California state auditors who will monitor compliance. 

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that food 

safety policy and the establishment of food safety standards are not 

within AMS’s mandate. However, AMS does have significant experience and expertise in the design and delivery of marketing programs, including those involving inspections for product quality 

and verification of production processes. At industry’s request, 

AMS has incorporated food safety related elements in several of its 

7

marketing programs for the produce industry. Thank you, and I 

would be pleased to respond to any questions. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, sir. We will now have Mr. Acheson testify, and then we will have the committee ask you questions. 

Thank you. Mr. Acheson. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID ACHESON, M.D., F.R.C.P., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD PROTECTION, U.S. FOOD 

AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ACHESON. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza and members of 

the subcommittee. I am Dr. David Acheson, assistant commissioner 

for food protection of the Food and Drug Administration. In this 

newly created position, Commissioner Von Eschenbach has asked 

me to provide advice and counsel on strategic and substantive food 

safety and food defense matters based on my knowledge and experience of the science behind food protection. 

FDA appreciates the opportunity to discuss the recent outbreaks 

of foodborne illness associated with fresh produce and the measures we are taking to enhance the safety of these products. I am 

pleased to be joined here today by my colleague, Mr. Lloyd Day of 

USDA. 

At FDA, ensuring that the products we regulate are safe and secure is a vital part of our public health mission. The agency regulates everything Americans eat except for meat, poultry, and processed egg products, which are regulated by USDA. 

FDA is committed to ensuring that America’s food supply continues to be among the safest in the world. In recent years, we 

have done a great deal to product the food supply from contamination, but the recent outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with 

fresh produce, peanut butter, and animal feed underscore the need 

to develop new, risk-based, farm-to-table approaches that integrate 

food safety and defense and focus on prevention, intervention and 

response. 

These new strategies are necessary to meet the challenges created by changes in the global food supply, changes in farming, 

manufacturing, and processing practices, and changes in consumer 

needs. The number of illnesses associated with fresh produce is a 

continuing concern of the agency, and we have worked on a number of initiatives to reduce the presence of pathogens in these foods. 

The fact that produce is often consumed raw or with only minimal processing without any type of intervention that would reduce 

or eliminate pathogens prior to consumption contributes to its potential as a source of foodborne illness. Consequently, addressing 

the way fresh produce is grown, harvested, and moved from farm 

to table is crucial to minimizing the risk of microbial contamination. 

FDA has worked with many of our food safety partners to 

produce industry guidelines that focus on preventing contamination. We have also focused our collective efforts on research to gain 

a better understanding of the fundamental reasons by foodborne 

agents get into fresh produce and to share our knowledge to date 

through educational outreach with affected parties and the public. 

With regard to industry guidelines, in March of this year, FDA 

issued a draft final version of its guide to minimize microbial food 

8

safety hazards of fresh cut fruits and vegetables. This guide should 

help industry reduce the health hazards that may be introduced or 

increased during the production of fresh cut produce. 

We have also assisted the industry in developing a number of 

other commodity-specific guidelines for the commodities most often 

associated with foodborne illness outbreaks. These include guidelines for lettuce and leafy greens, melons, and tomatoes. We are 

working with industry on similar guidelines for herbs and green 

onions. 

The example of fresh sprouts illustrates how successful these efforts can be. In 1999, there were 390 reported illnesses associated 

with eating contaminated fresh sprouts. FDA published two guidance documents for sprouts that year. We believe that the subsequent decline in sprout-associated illness was in large part due to 

the industry’s adherence to the FDA recommendations. In 2004, 

only 33 illnesses were reported associated with fresh sprouts, and 

in 2005 and 2006, there were none. 

The recent initiative of the California Department of Food and 

Agriculture, the Leafy Green Handler Marketing Agreement, is another important step toward improving the safety of these foods. 

This program verifies and certifies that growers are adhering to 

good agricultural practices. We also work closely with our partners 

on research to enhance food safety. 

For example, for the past decade, FDA has worked closely with 

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service to coordinate and mutually support our respective research efforts related to produce safety. We worked together to analyze water samples from the Salinas 

watershed for E.coli O157:H7 and to relate the location of bacteria 

to geographical, seasonal, or rainfall variation. An extension of this 

research will look for sources of E.coli O157:H7 in California’s Salinas Valley. Information obtained from this study will be used to inform produce growers about strategies to prevent preharvest microbial contamination. 

Educational outreach and the sharing of safety information with 

affected parties is another important component of enhancing the 

safety of fresh produce. In February, we participated in a forum 

sponsored by the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security to 

share information regarding the safety of lettuce and leafy greens 

on the farm and at packing, cooling, and processing facilities. 

Also in February, the FDA affiliated joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and the University of Florida sponsored 

a workshop to improve understanding of how tomatoes become contaminated with salmonella and other pathogens. Later this month, 

FDA, the National Center for Food Safety and Technology, and the 

University of Georgia’s Center for Food Safety will cosponsor a 

workshop on microbial testing to reach a consensus on the role of 

microbial testing in ensuring the safety of produce. 

In addition, the agency recently held two public hearings concerning the safety of fresh produce. The purpose of these hearings 

was for FDA to share information about recent outbreaks of 

foodborne illness related to fresh produce and to solicit comments, 

data, and additional scientific information on this issue. The adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
9

ministrative record tied to these hearings will remain open until 

June 13, 2007. 

In summary, FDA continues to work with federal, state, and 

international food safety partners and with industry to address 

fresh produce and broader food safety food defense challenges in 

our nation’s food supply. As we move forward, we are focusing our 

attention on three key areas: preventing contamination through a 

strong science base, risk-based preventative controls, and 

leveraging with key partners; improving intervention methods by 

using modern technology to establish a comprehensive integrated 

food information system to analyze information and detect potential contamination; and by enhancing our rapid response capabilities by, for example, improving product tracking. Thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss FDA’s ongoing efforts to improve the safety 

of fresh produce. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Dr. Acheson. My first question goes to 

Mr. Day. In your testimony, sir, you testified that AMS cooperative 

programs are funded by producers and packing houses through 

user fee collections. Please tell the subcommittee how much is contributed by the industry for these purposes and can you provide 

briefly program-by-program detail for the record of this hearing? 

Mr. DAY. I would be happy to provide more detail for the record. 

The audits cost essentially $75 an hour, and an audit of a packinghouse or something like that would take about 8 hours. So that is 

about $600 for an audit. As to the total number, the value for all 

the audits we perform, we did 352 last year, so you would probably 

multiply that times $600, and that would be the total contribution 

that goes to not just AMS but also to the states that do a lot of 

the auditing. 

Mr. CARDOZA. How many packinghouses and shippers are there 

in the country that you should be inspecting? 

Mr. DAY. I don’t have the actual number of all those, but we are 

doing over 300 right now. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay, sir, if you could get that for us because I 

think that speaks to also the issue of how many are being certified, 

how often that needs to be done, that would be helpful. 

Mr. DAY. All right, we would be happy to provide that to you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Sir, in my opening statement, I mentioned that I believe that there should be 1 regulatory agency that 

is responsible for all food safety questions so that there is accountability. I don’t necessarily think that just shifting bureaucracies is 

always the answer. Certainly the Homeland Security Department 

has sort of proven that philosophy not to be necessarily the best 

situation. 

But I would like to ask you very pointedly if you think that 

USDA would be a better agency to address this question of produce 

food safety. 

Mr. DAY. Well, we believe that the existing food safety system is 

working, that the American food supply continues to be among the 

safest in the world. Since AMS is a marketing agency and we just 

provide assistance to potential quality attributes related to food 

safety, I don’t think it would be in my purview to opine as to 

10

whether AMS or USDA versus FDA would be the appropriate agency. So I will decline to comment on that, sir. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Dr. Acheson, has FDA taken any actions requiring 

fruit and vegetable producers and processors to have written plans 

about contamination risks and how to address them? 

Mr. ACHESON. With regard to written plans, in terms of processes, yes, there is a requirement for good manufacturing practices 

at the processing level. That requires the maintenance of certain 

records around sanitation issues. When you get down to producers 

at the farm level, the answer is no. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay, where did the contamination take place in 

some of the most recent outbreaks? 

Mr. ACHESON. You mean in the spinach outbreak? 

Mr. CARDOZA. Yes. 

Mr. ACHESON. Most likely the site of contamination was at the 

farm level and——

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay, so basically what you just told me is that 

you have got some regulatory measures in place, but at the level 

the contamination took place, there is no requirement of any plan? 

Mr. ACHESON. That is correct. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Was the contamination of the spinach due to systemic fluid uptake through the roots of the plant, or was it surface 

contamination on the surface of the plant through irrigation water 

splashing up or contaminants on the outside that weren’t controlled 

by the washing? And if it was the latter, did the packaging of these 

products contribute to how virulently the pathogen contaminated 

humans? 

Mr. ACHESON. In truth, we don’t know exactly how the spinach 

became contaminated. The ideas that you just mentioned are all 

plausible hypotheses. That it came in through the root system, that 

is certainly potentially possible. Frankly, I think it is more likely 

that it was external contamination. Once E.coli O157 sticks to a 

leaf of a piece of spinach, it sticks on very tightly, and it is hard 

to get it off. So precisely how that spinach became contaminated, 

we don’t know in that context. It could have been through water. 

It could have been through wild animals. It could have been from 

birds. It could have been a variety of possible sources. 

Once that product is contaminated at the farm level, then clearly 

what has to be done is to prevent further contamination of other 

product. Proper processing of the spinach, proper washing with appropriate chlorine levels, et cetera, will minimize the likelihood of 

spread. It will not necessarily kill E.coli that are already on that 

spinach. But clearly processors have a responsibility to make sure 

that, if there is a problem, it doesn’t spread to other spinach that 

is not contaminated to begin with. 

Mr. CARDOZA. It seems to me, sir, that we need to find out these 

answers, that we need to know what is causing what some believe 

is increased outbreaks. I don’t know that there is increased, or just 

that we are finding more of them. But what it speaks to me is that 

there is a lack of research dollars being put into this area. That 

is really the federal government’s role in my mind is to make sure 

that we provide safety, that we provide security, and we find out 

what the causes are. That has traditionally been the federal government’s role in research. 

11

Has your administration put forward an increased research 

budget for this area? 

Mr. ACHESON. First of all, I couldn’t agree with you more. A fundamentally sound scientific infrastructure to make food safety decisions is critical. You cannot make good decisions if you don’t have 

sound science and sound scientific infrastructure to do that. To get 

that, you need the appropriate resources, and you need the research to get the job done. 

FDA is not a research agency. We are a regulatory agency. What 

we do with regard to research is work with our research colleagues, 

especially in the department of agriculture, agricultural research 

services, as well as CSREES in terms of working with them and 

looking at the critical areas, what needs to get done, what are the 

critical answers. So that is how we do that. We are essentially 

sharing our knowledge, sharing our concerns with the research 

agencies who can actually get the job done. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Sir, I agree with what you just said, other than 

the part where I need to know whether your administration has 

asked for an increase in the research budget to get to the bottom 

of these problems. 

Mr. ACHESON. I believe in the current FY ’08 request there is an 

increase in research, specifically yes. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Okay, one last question. There is going to be testimony here later on today by another witness that says that the 

number of inspections has actually decreased dramatically in the 

last 3 years. Is that true? 

Mr. ACHESON. Yes, but I think one has to look at how inspection 

is done. I mean this obviously has been a focus with regard to imports, and what the agency is doing is using a risk-based strategy. 

Simply inspecting more foods just because they are there is not the 

answer to the problem. It has to be risk-based, targeted inspections. But that alone isn’t going to solve the problem. What we are 

trying to do, and part of my new role in this new position is to create this strategic thinking, is to move back, which gets at some of 

your earlier comments, focus on the preventative strategies. We 

don’t want to inspect our way out of this problem. We want to prevent it, and you have got to have the scientific infrastructure to do 

that. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I would suggest to you, sir, that we need both. 

Mr. ACHESON. I couldn’t agree more, but if you prevent it, intervene, and then have a robust response system, that is the best that 

you can do to prevent it ever getting on the dinner plate. And if 

it does, to respond quickly. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I have so many more questions, but I am going to 

turn it over to my colleagues because I know they have excellent 

questions as well. Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Day, in the 

last 9 months, have you seen an increase in the amount of 

verification in audit requests that you have had from your agency? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, Congressman Neugebauer. In fact if you look at 

’06 inspections versus ’07 inspections, we have seen an increase of 

about 108 percent, so certainly there is a growing demand for these 

kind of services by the industry. And much of that is demanded by 

their customers down the marketing chain. 

12

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I think that was my question is I would 

suspect that people that are marketing the fruits and vegetables 

are probably very anxious to have that certification to give them 

some insurance that, in fact, that their products are going to be 

safe. 

Mr. DAY. Yes, you are exactly right, sir. There is certainly a 

trend by those that are purchasing the product to have this kind 

of good agricultural practices or good handling practices seal of certification to add value, to add some sense of safety to the product 

as they receive it. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. What percentage of the end user, the people 

that are marketing fruits and vegetables, what percentage of those 

folks do you think are requiring some kind of a certification in 

audit process? In other words, how strong is the market demand 

for that? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, I don’t have an actual number on that. We can try 

and find that number and send it to you, but it is certainly growing. Major retailers as well as restaurants are looking for more and 

more food safety assurances, especially given the recent outbreaks. 

And I think as the chairman mentioned, whether there are an increase in outbreaks or whether we are just noticing more outbreaks 

because of improved communication and technologies is a very fundamental question to this whole debate. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Maybe this is a question for Dr. Acheson, but 

are there disclosures to the end users on best practices of washing 

fruits and vegetables before consumption? I mean within the restaurants, within the packaging of the end user. Because I know 

that my grandmother used to wash vegetables until you couldn’t 

tell what they actually were when she got through with them for 

the very reason she was concerned about that. But what kind of 

responsibility does the end user or the consumers have as far as 

taking some due diligence there? Dr. Acheson. 

Mr. ACHESON. Sure. Consumers do have a responsibility, as does 

everybody who handles food, whether it is from the grower, the 

processor, the packer, the distributor, the retailer, all the way 

down to the consumer. Once the consumer gets a hold of that and 

it is the kitchen, they have responsibilities. And we have had and 

continue to have extensive educational programs about food safety 

in general, cooking, chilling, cleaning, separating in that context. 

We have specific consumer information on what to do with leafy 

greens and how to wash them and fruits and vegetables. And that 

is an important part of the consumer message, and as we were 

dealing with spinach on an ongoing basis, those consumer messages were constantly being repeated in terms of what consumers 

can do to help ensure the safety in their own homes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I notice that FDA has issued guidance documents to producers in industry to help them understand good agricultural practices or GAPs as I believe they are referred to. Are 

those generic, or are they commodity specific? In other words, do 

you have different guidelines for tomatoes, lettuce, spinach, fresh 

fruit, or are these general or specific? 

Mr. ACHESON. We have both. The original good agricultural practices document that was issued in 1998 was broad and focused on 

good agricultural practices pretty much across the board. Since 

13

then, we have issued a number of product-specific guidelines. Melons, sprouts, fresh cut produce is the most recent one, and we are 

working on others as I mentioned in my oral testimony on herbs 

and other things. So we have the broad approach and then the 

more focused one. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Just in my final time here, if I could get each 

one of you to respond to this. How are the two of you working together? Explain to me interaction that your two agencies would 

have when it comes to the food safety for fruits and vegetables. I 

will start with Mr. Day. 

Mr. DAY. Sure. We have an ongoing consultative relationship 

with FDA for its voluntary GAP and good handling practices and 

other audit-based programs. What happens is when they would 

change their guidelines, they would notify us. We would change 

how we actually go out and audit a program to be based on those 

specific guidelines for whether it is tomatoes or cantaloupes or 

leafy greens. And as we are out in plants, we have a memorandum 

of understanding. So that if we notice something that might be 

some kind of an egregious food safety problem, we would certainly 

notify FDA and FDA notifies us in the kind of things that might 

be related to the marketing issues that we need to be cognizant of. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Dr. Acheson. 

Mr. ACHESON. I think my colleague here has summarized it well. 

We have a very good working relationship. When we develop a new 

scientific approach, we make sure we share it with the people who 

are interacting on a more ongoing basis. AMS has a great capability of actually getting boots on the ground in some of these 

places. It is more eyes. It is more ears, educating and looking for 

problems. To give you a specific example of the interaction, since 

food defense came on the scene, we work closely with AMS, and we 

had individuals over on detail at FDA to understand the nuances 

of the importance of food defense and how to put it into context for 

industry as a whole, not just produce, but it applies to produce. 

So there is a very good working relationship, and I think the two 

of us essentially form part of this integrated team, which is what 

makes the food safety system what it is right now. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have overextended. 

Thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I thank you for excellent questions, Mr. 

Neugebauer. The chair would like to remind members that they 

will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for members 

who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, members will 

be recognized in order of arrival, and I appreciate members understanding. I would now like to recognize the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for 

holding this hearing. I note with regret though the failure of FDA 

to provide witness testimony in a timely manner, and I hope that 

will not be the case in the future because it helps us do a better 

job of being prepared. 

As I mentioned in the full committee hearing on food safety that 

we held last week, our food supply here in the United States has 

always been referred to as the safest and most abundant in the 

world, and I hope we are able to keep saying that. But the outVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
14

break that we have had in the last year of spinach in California, 

the problem with lettuce at Taco Bell, and now tainted pet food, 

and we find that some of it has gotten into the food chain of some 

of the chicken and pork. I just want to stress that we have got to 

get our hands around this whole issue so that consumers will not 

be suspicious of the food they are feeding their children. 

And my home state of North Carolina is a major producer of 

fruits and vegetables for the east coast. And if we want to make 

sure the industry continues to grow and increase exports, it is critical that we get this done and don’t have other outbreaks. 

Nobody remembers how many good meals they get, but I guarantee you they are going to remember the bad ones. So Mr. Day, 

you mentioned several programs that AMS has implemented to ensure food and vegetable safety. Did you say that AMS agreement 

with California Department of Food and Agriculture to address the 

spinach issue was voluntary? 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, aren’t some of the programs, such as those 

monitoring aflatoxin in peanuts and salmonella in almonds mandatory? 

Mr. DAY. Yes. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Why are some of these problems voluntary? 

Mr. DAY. Well——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Some are not. Doesn’t this compromise the entire system? 

Mr. DAY. Well, some are voluntary because they are part of the 

marketing agreement in which the handlers and producers voluntarily become part of that. A marketing order, on the other hand, 

is mandatory, and there is a referenda every 5 years so that the 

peanut growers, for instance, or the almond growers, they vote to 

be a part of this order. And once a change or some kind of a regulation is——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I appreciate that, but doesn’t it compromise the 

system? 

Mr. DAY. Well, I don’t think it compromises the system. I think 

it is just different systems. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay, next question. Does USDA have an estimate as to the impact that last year’s contaminated spinach or lettuce had on U.S. exports, and, for that matter, domestic costs? 

Mr. DAY. On U.S. exports, I don’t think it was tremendous, but 

I did hear a number that it cost the industry perhaps $100 million. 

I think most of that was geared toward domestic consumption decline. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. $100 million? 

Mr. DAY. I heard that, but I don’t know that is the accurate 

value. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Okay, let me ask a question as it relates to FDA. 

What is the FDA doing to increase trace-back technology to hopefully limit the extent of the damage when inevitable breakdowns 

occur? 

Mr. ACHESON. First of all, may I just apologize that you didn’t 

get the paperwork in a timely manner. We will try to make sure 

that doesn’t happen. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, sir. 

15

Mr. ACHESON. Improving trace-back is all part and parcel of 

where we need to be moving with this strategic plan around protecting the food supply. The trace-back piece, the response piece is 

when things have failed and people or pets have started to get sick, 

what can we do to get onto it. You asked specifically about what 

we are doing to develop that. At this point, we are simply trying 

to make sure that our current systems are robust enough to handle 

data when it comes in a timely way. 

But I think this needs to be looked at in a more radical way. We 

talked about basic science around preventing the bugs getting 

there in the first place. I believe we need technological infrastructure to better be able to handle data to get faster tracking in such 

a way——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Have you requesting funding for that, or do you 

need funding to make sure that happens? 

Mr. ACHESON. Part of the strategic thinking that I am working 

on is looking at this big picture and whether that is—how that 

would fit into it. But there is a need to go down that road, but we 

are not at that point yet. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do you have funds in this year’s budget for that? 

Mr. ACHESON. That is not currently in there yet. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Will you request that before this year is out so 

we can get it in the budget? 

Mr. ACHESON. I don’t exactly know where that is going to go, and 

part of my role is to develop this plan as quickly as possible. And 

if we can do it to get it in this year, then that would be the goal. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. We look forward to having that. Let me go back 

to one final question, Mr. Chairman, because you mentioned earlier 

that the number of inspections had dropped. You did not answer 

why. So I would like to know why they dropped. 

Mr. ACHESON. I beg your pardon. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. In the previous testimony with the chairman, 

you said the number of inspections had dropped, and I wanted to 

follow up as to why they dropped. 

Mr. ACHESON. What we are having to do at FDA is to allocate 

the resources that we have in the areas of maximum risk. In the 

context of inspections, we have shifted things around a little bit. 

Some things have been inspected slightly more frequently, particularly certain aspects of imports, others less. Overall, as the resources have had to be moved around, the total number of inspections have dropped. I mean that is just the way it is. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I will close with this. It seems to me if numbers 

have dropped and the problems have increased and we are reallocating resources, we may need to reallocate resources again to get 

more inspection because it seems to me to give the confidence to 

the American consumer when we are importing more foods, we got 

a real problem if we aren’t inspecting. I would ask you to take a 

look at that because I think that is a critical issue. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. I appreciate your questions. Now, I would like to turn it over to 5 minutes of questioning 

by Mr. Conaway. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Acheson, you 

talked about a risk-based model that, I assume, focuses our attenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
16

tion on the areas of greatest risk. As the food moves from the producer to the table, can you talk to us about how you are evaluating 

this and what this risk-based model is and how you evaluate the 

various stages and what your plans are to address those risks in 

this model? 

Mr. ACHESON. With regard to risk, you have got to look at it very 

broadly, and it has got to be farm-to-table continuum, and it has 

got to look at domestic as well as imported. But to take your specific example, let us take, since we have been talking about spinach, the risk to spinach. Clearly when you are looking at the history of spinach that is starting out in an open field, what are the 

risks associated with the contamination there, and how do you prevent them? 

Once it is then in a processing facility, what are the risks associated with that in terms of how it is washed, how it is handled? 

Clearly that is not an environment where fresh contamination is 

likely from an external source. It is not impossible, but it is not as 

likely as a field. The greater risk is through spreading. 

Then as you are moving down beyond the processing, let us say 

it is in a bag. It is prewashed. There are issues with distribution 

and retail in terms of refrigeration. If those products are not adequately refrigerated, if there are low levels of E.coli on there, they 

could potentially grow. So there is a risk in that context. 

When you move it into the consumer environment, clearly the 

need to keep it refrigerated, there is also a risk. And then there 

is actually a risk of cross-contamination in a consumer environment or restaurant environment from, example, say raw meat 

would spread the juices onto the leafy greens. So there are different 

degrees of risk at different points in that chain. 

And the inspection, the testing resources and the preventative 

strategies need to be tailored based on where that risk is because 

the controls and the risks on the farm are very different than the 

controls and risks as you move further down that chain. So it is 

clearly complex, and it is multifaceted. And you need to be looking 

at the whole piece. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Right, and so do we have that in place? 

Mr. ACHESON. Beg pardon? Do we have what? 

Mr. CONAWAY. Do you have that model in place? 

Mr. ACHESON. We do not have that model in place yet, but that 

is part of——

Mr. CONAWAY. And the timeframe for implementing the model, 

or obviously it is not going to be same model for everything we eat, 

but where are you in your work? 

Mr. ACHESON. These broad preventative strategies focused on 

risk and intervention are exactly what I am working on now in my 

new position. It is going to take a little while before we get all this 

figured out because it is complicated. As to how long? I don’t know 

exactly how long, but I can tell you it is a top priority for us to 

get something put in place as quickly as possible. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right. Mr. Day, you talked about the cooperation between California and USDA and what appears to be good 

work to the California legislature has done with respect to, I guess, 

lettuce and green leafy stuff. Do the states work well together 

across state lines? In other words, are the agriculture group in 

17

Texas adopting the same kind of a model that California has done? 

Can you talk to us a little bit about the——

Mr. DAY. Sure. 

Mr. CONAWAY. —cross-state cooperation? 

Mr. DAY. Actually, commodity groups and major purchasers 

across the country are developing specific food safety programs or 

contract requirements related to good agricultural practices and 

good handling practices. Several initiatives, to just list them out of 

you, include California Cantaloupe, California Leafy Greens, Florida Tomatoes, California Strawberries, California Citrus Research 

Board, The Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, the 

American Mushroom Institute, the National Watermelon Association, and some of the potato growers up in the Pacific Northwest. 

So there is a wide variety of groups that are looking at developing 

new product safety standards, most of them based on the FDA 

guidelines and then finding ways that they can audit toward those 

to ensure the customers down the marketing chain that they have 

improved and they have the latest good agricultural practices in 

place. 

Mr. CONAWAY. So, in your view, do states look at each other’s 

best models? Do the best models actually percolate across states, 

or is it that the commodity groups are doing it, and it spreads that 

way. 

Mr. DAY. Yeah, there is a lot of collaboration among the state departments of agriculture on this very issue right now. 

Mr. CONAWAY. The $100 million that you say the spinach lost, 

is that spread across the whole——

Mr. DAY. The whole country. 

Mr. CONAWAY. No, I know. But the losers in that $100 million 

were all the way from the producers to the folks that got sick. I 

mean is that——

Mr. DAY. Right, from the producers——

Mr. CONAWAY. So everybody along the chain had some pain in 

that system——

Mr. DAY. Right. 

Mr. CONAWAY. —in order to try to motivate them to fix whatever 

needs to be fixed? 

Mr. DAY. Precisely. 

Mr. CONAWAY. All right, thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank the gentleman from Texas. I am going to 

now proceed to call up the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Davis, 

for questioning, but before I do that, I would like to request for the 

gentleman an opportunity to yield back to me for just a moment 

for a question for Acheson. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield as much time that you 

have allotted me that you may consume. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, and we will let you go a little bit more 

in a just a minute. But Dr Acheson, I know you have only been on 

your position for a short time, and I really don’t want to beat you 

up that it always seems like the guy that comes in to fix the problems are the ones that we end up asking the tough questions to 

rather than the people that were in place before they got there. So 

I apologize for this. 

18

But earlier in your testimony, you told me that FDA does not 

support research and doesn’t do research in these areas. And in 

fact, that is wrong. You have research centers in Mississippi, Illinois, and Maryland currently, nothing in the west coast or the 

western part of the United States. And there have been a number 

of folks, universities, working with FDA to locate FDA scientists in 

the West where the vast majority of fruits and vegetables in this 

country are grown; although, they are grown all over the country, 

as Mr. Etheridge mentioned earlier. In fact, the folks who, through 

the miracle of technology, have informed me of this fact, said that 

they have been working with FDA for some time getting a lot of 

encouragement at the lower levels but that the brass at the top has 

not been nearly as forthcoming with the desire to locate research 

on the west coast. 

So I am going to allow you to speak to that, but I just wanted 

to correct that inaccuracy that was in the record. 

Mr. ACHESON. Well, thank you for your correction. Maybe I 

misspoke slightly, but I think what I said was that FDA is not a 

regulatory agency—a research agency, I am sorry. FDA is not a research agency. That doesn’t mean that the agency doesn’t do some 

level of research. We have research labs in our offices at College 

Park. And, as you pointed out, we do research in various other 

places. What I did not want to leave you with the impression with 

was that FDA has the current structure and resources to be able 

to drive the research program that is needed with regard to solving 

the problems in fresh produce and other food safety areas. 

Yes, we do some research, but it is not at a level of a research 

agency. In terms of——

Mr. CARDOZA. Just a second, Mr. Acheson. That is exactly my 

point. What you just said was the reason why I asked the question 

was that we don’t have the structure currently——

Mr. ACHESON. Yes. 

Mr. CARDOZA. —to do the research that is necessary. And your 

administration hasn’t asked for it. 

Mr. ACHESON. I would agree that we don’t have the required 

structure, and that is part of what I am trying to build here is 

what is the research structure going to look like. And it is going 

to take resources and energy to make that happen. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I couldn’t agree more. Mr. Davis, I am going to 

turn it back over to you and ask this clerk to reset the clock for 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and the ranking members for holding this hearing today. And I also want to 

thank the witnesses who are here testifying today. It has been 

often said that the number one priority for those who serve in government is to be sure that Americans are protected. This not only 

extends to fighting terrorism in Homeland Security or making sure 

we have plenty law enforcement officials on the street. 

Food safety is also an important issue, one that relates to our 

protection from tainted or unhealthy food. One of the major reasons 

American agriculture products are the best in the world is that 

they are also the safest. American consumers have a great deal of 

confidence in the safety of our food. The repercussions of this conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
19

fidence eroding would be unbelievably immense both in our domestic markets and our ability to sell our agricultural products abroad. 

At the end of the day, no one benefits from consumers thinking 

that America’s food supply is not safe. All the work that we have 

done with consumer marketing, with FDA and USDA has been to 

be sure that the consumer is protected, and we do that through 

being sure that the packers and the canners and the processors, 

not the ones who produce it but the ones who prepare in many 

cases what has been produced by the farmer and between that 

farmer and the consumer, to be sure that chain that ties the fields 

to the table will be safe. 

It is not our job to protect the profits of the processors. It is our 

responsibility to protect the consuming public in America. And as 

a result of that, we see more and more agriculture products, 

consumable items, being imported into our country from other 

parts of the world. Could you give me a rough idea of about how 

much you think, what percentage of our food is imported from 

countries outside the U.S. that would be imported from either our 

continent or from Europe or from Asia or other parts of the world, 

compared with the food that we consume, in other words, what we 

produce and what we consume? Could you give me a rough estimate? Do you understand the question? 

Mr. ACHESON. I do, yes. I can certainly get you a more accurate 

number, but I believe it is in the order of 15 percent the food that 

we consume is imported. It varies by commodity of food though. 

Mr. DAVIS. So you are saying 15 percent of the fruits and vegetables, canned items that would be canned, processed, or prepared in 

other parts of the world, that may be imported in the country as 

well as—are you saying only 15 percent is what we import? 

Mr. ACHESON. I am saying on average total is 15 percent. Seafood, for example, is much higher. It is of the order of 70 percent. 

Fresh produce will vary, depending on the commodity and depending on the time of year. If you want a specific breakdown of which 

foods, which percentage, I could provide that for you. But the 15 

percent is across the board on average. 

Mr. DAVIS. If you could find an accurate percentage wise, I would 

love for you to send that to my office. Second question is this. Obviously in our country, we have done a pretty good job of inspecting, 

being sure that the foods we consume are healthy, protect us. We 

even list the nutrition of those on the label of what we consume, 

but we have no ability to be able to regulate any products, except 

through trade, I guess, that is imported into this country. And to 

me, I think that is an area we may be letting down just a little 

bit. What percentages of inspections on imported products of the 

workforce that we have, what percent of our workforce is put into 

inspecting imported products compared to those produced and processed here in America? 

Mr. ACHESON. I can get—I have some colleagues with me who 

could probably provide you a more specific answer, but I believe it 

is approximately 50 percent, 50/50. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is 50/50 for the imported products compared to 50 

percent of what we actually produce here in America? 

20

Mr. ACHESON. It is of that order, and again I can provide you 

with a specific breakdown, but I would just say—can I—will you 

allow me to just sort of——

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. ACHESON. —follow up a little bit? Certainly your question 

was suggesting that we have absolutely no control over the safety 

of foods that come from other countries, and I think that is a little 

bit of an overstatement in terms of the risks. We do. I mean that 

is what the inspectors are doing at the ports. If we find a problem, 

we can put out an import alert. That is what we have done with 

the rice protein concentrates and an example in the produce context would be cantaloupes that we imported where we had problems with salmonella. And we put an import alert out there to prevent the importation of potentially contaminated cantaloupes. So I 

want to, just for the record, point out that we do a lot to protect. 

Mr. DAVIS. There was obviously a huge failure back a few weeks 

ago when some products came into America that was tainted that 

we were not able to locate. So the point I am making is that in 

the—when it is processed in a foreign country and then shipped in 

this country, do we have inspectors that are inspecting the food 

that is going to be coming into America? 

Mr. ACHESON. We do not have inspectors on a regular basis going 

to foreign manufacturers. If there is a problem and there is a need 

to get an inspector out there to look at the problem, we do and we 

have. 

Mr. DAVIS. In the area I am from, we have a lot of broiler processing, meat packing, not as much—very few in the area that I am 

from, but there is a certainly on-the-spot inspectors in virtually 

every processing plant that we have in this country. That was the 

point I was making to say here, we are there looking at what is 

being processed. In other countries, we are not, and I think that 

is an area where we may be failing. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Davis, 

for your questions. We are now going to turn it over to my friend 

and colleague from California, Mr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

having this hearing. I know the work you have done in this area. 

I had a line of questions, but I just am going to follow up really 

in what the chairman was asking earlier. First to Administrator 

Day. You said you have done 300 of those inspections, but you 

couldn’t give a number of how many total plants there were. Would 

you consider that to be—could you give me a percentage of the 300, 

how many overall? Would it be 10 percent with inspections? I mean 

how comfortable do you feel with that number? 

Mr. DAY. Well, I can get you a total number. I don’t know that 

it is even as high as 10 percent. We do inspect for anything that 

we are purchasing into the national school lunch program. All of 

those facilities are inspected, and they are going to be mandated 

to have GAPs and GHPs and all of that. And so that number is 

certainly growing, whether it is on the beef side or on the fruit and 

vegetable side. But I will have to submit for the record the actual 

percentage because I don’t know that off the top of my head. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Okay, and Doctor, if I could follow up. The chairman asked about how the E.coli outbreak occurred from the standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
21

point of how it came. And you said the answer from the standpoint—and I got—I guess I refer to the FDA and California Department of Health Services on March 23, their final report. They were 

unable to definitely determine how the bacteria spread onto the 

spinach. Were you able to eliminate any of the concerns or ways 

that it may have been spread on either of them? 

Mr. ACHESON. No. As you point out, that report indicates a number of potential ways that it could have spread onto the spinach. 

We weren’t there at the time. Obviously we were going in after the 

fact, and exactly how, you can’t say one way or the other. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So to me, this is the fundamental question as we 

move forward. One, how did it occur? And are there any ways that 

we find out that it didn’t? What is the plan, or do you have one, 

to actually get to that answer? 

Mr. ACHESON. There is a lot of research already going on with, 

as has been mentioned, the Western Institute, with the state of 

California as part of that, with the other research organizations to 

get at some of these fundamental questions. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you think we will be able to answer that 

question? 

Mr. ACHESON. We have to. I mean it may not be in the short 

term, but we have got to set up the fundamental systems to get at 

how do these bugs get into food in the first place. Because only by 

understanding that, what I would term microbial ecology, where 

are these bacteria living, how are they moving around, how are 

they getting from wild animals onto produce, from water onto 

produce, and what are the controls to prevent it? Can you ever 

hope to have a sophisticated preventative strategy that is going to 

work. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I agree with you because that is the fundamental answer we need before we move forward on how to cure 

this. I mean what I see in California—I just came from the legislature there—and everybody is producing legislation without really 

knowing it is going to answer the problem and how do we get the 

trust of the people. 

Mr. ACHESON. Exactly right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. So from my question and your answer that is 

there, and prior with the chairman when it comes to research, 

what has been requested in the budget that can get you that answer and get the American people that answer? Earlier you requested it is not fundamental research, your agency. The chairman 

came back with all these different areas of where we do research. 

Knowing a lot of this had happened in California, coming from the 

area of UC Davis and others, have we requested the ability for the 

research and the technology, especially going forward, to answer 

the question? 

Mr. ACHESON. Can I get back to you on the specific amount that 

we have requested for FY ’08 for research because I——

Mr. MCCARTHY. You can get back to me, but do you have a plan 

that is going to answer it? 

Mr. ACHESON. I will have. Part of my mission in this job is to 

put food safety defense number 1, and come up with a strategic approach that is going to prevent if possible, intervene if necessary, 

and inspect to ensure prevention is working, and then respond. 

22

And frankly, I am not there yet with that plan. And, as I think I 

have said, building that research infrastructure, understanding 

those fundamental mechanisms of how bacteria are moving around, 

it is key to all of this. And it has got to be built into how do you 

make this work. We need to get away from reaction and focus on 

prevention. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I agree with you there, and I guess I want to 

help you help us from the standpoint——

Mr. ACHESON. Right. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. —the Farm Bill is coming up, and we have a 

short window of opportunity here. And I think we can miss an opportunity of safety for America. If I could request of you to work 

with the subcommittee that we could come up with that plan because I think the American people ask that we answer that fundamental question of safety. And I think it all hinges in this whole 

hearing based upon did we answer how it got there. And if we can’t 

answer that fundamental question, we really can’t move forward. 

So if there is an ability that we all agree that it needs greater 

research and a plan to answer the fundamental question, I would 

like to be able to do that. And I would tell you that this committee 

is more than willing to work with you. And I know you have a big 

job, and you are just getting on the job. But if we could speed that 

up in a manner and bring people together, especially, in the long 

run we need to focus on the research. And knowing how large California is and how many producers in the West, if we could move 

there, I know the chairman would be very helpful. I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. CARDOZA. I would like to thank the gentleman from California for both his questioning and his expertise in this issue. It 

is certainly something that concerns us in our home state, and we 

are going to have to get to the bottom of it, as you said. I am going 

to be turning it over to the gentleman from Georgia in just a moment. But I want to announce to the audience and to the members 

that I have got to present a bill on the floor in just a moment. I 

will be doing that. I will be turning it over, when he returns, to 

Mr. Etheridge to conduct the hearing, and then I will be returning 

as soon as the bill has been presented. Gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, my areas of 

concern are probably going to be pitched more to Dr. Acheson than 

to Mr. Day, but I have some observations I would like Mr. Day to 

chime in on. But at the outset, Mr. Day, you referred in passing 

to the Georgia Fruits and Vegetables Association. Well, I have 

talked with those folks, and the context for my comments is going 

to be this background here. 

You know in my part of the country we probably have the most 

diverse agricultural portfolio of any place in the country. We may 

not produce as much of most things as they produce in some bigger 

states, but we produce as great a variety of anything as you can 

find anywhere in my part of the country. And the folks in my part 

of the country are under intense pressure from foreign imports, and 

one of the areas of concern they bring up with me is to make sure 

that we are trading and producing on a level playing field. So I 

want to follow on some of the questions that were suggested by the 

thorough cross examination of the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

23

Davis, and just make a couple of observations as I focus in on this 

problem. 

Actually you may have been correct in pointing out that what we 

are consuming from imports may be only 15 percent of what we are 

consuming. But at the hearing of the subcommittee on specialty 

crops just last week, we established that insofar as the balance of 

trade in food is concerned we have become a net importer for the 

first time in this last year. And that 15 percent you are talking 

about 50/50 in terms of how much we are exporting as opposed to 

how much we are importing. 

So of that 15 percent that is the trend that we are confronting. 

If you want to know where you are, you want to know where you 

are moving. You want to know where you have been and where 

things are moving. And we are moving toward importing more and 

more of our food. Now, I want to compare and contrast what I hear 

you saying we are doing in your area of responsibility with what 

I understand to be the case with respect to the USDA when it 

comes to meat inspection. 

When it comes to meat inspection, we have a proactive policy of 

protecting the American consumer by sending inspectors abroad to 

every processing plant that has any significant business with this 

country. We check it out before it gets on the boat, before it gets 

on the plane. We are inspecting to make sure that the processing 

facilities are up to our standards before it gets to the American 

marketplace. 

You compare and contrast that with what you describe we are 

doing with respect to the now majority of trade in produce where 

our policy is largely reactive. We are standing on the shore, and if 

we notice something dirty, either when it arrives on our shore or 

after the test population shows that there is something dirty in the 

stream of commerce, then we put out market alerts. Then we run 

the stuff down. We have a proactive policy versus an essentially reactive policy with respect to a share of our ag consumption that is 

growing every year, and that concerns me. 

With my part of the country with folks who are involved in the 

production of fruits and vegetables, we are highly regulated in a 

manner that we have accepted as the cost of doing business in this 

country. We regulate at the growing state, at the processing, with 

the chemicals and the pesticides that are applied, when it comes 

to harvesting, when it comes to processing. We make sure that the 

stuff is good enough for our marketplace so the net effect of this 

is we are doing a better job of protecting the foreign consumers of 

American produce then we are protecting American consumers of 

foreign produce. And that ain’t cutting it. I don’t think that is going 

to work for us. 

So what I want you to do is to tell me if I am off base on that, 

and then I want Mr. Day to chime in and say whether he thinks 

the time has come for your agency to start doing more of what his 

agency is doing. For us to get off of a reactive approach toward this 

and start becoming more proactive and policing the production side 

of things before it enters the stream of commerce. 

Now, I will let it go and let you guys have at it. 

24

Mr. ACHESON. Thank you. First of all, let me say in support of 

what I said earlier, I completely agree with you. Reacting to a 

problem is not the way to deal with this. 

Mr. BARROW. Then what are we doing to change our policy from 

reaction to proaction? 

Mr. ACHESON. We are developing a strategy to try to do exactly 

that. 

Mr. BARROW. When are we going to have a strategy and who is 

doing the developing? 

Mr. ACHESON. I am. That is my responsibility. 

Mr. BARROW. When are we going to have something to look at? 

Mr. ACHESON. As quickly as I can get it. 

Mr. BARROW. Any—bigger than a breadbox and smaller than the 

Empire State Building? 

Mr. ACHESON. We will see. I mean you have raised a lot of important questions. 

Mr. BARROW. Well, I represent producers who are not playing on 

a level playing field and consumers who aren’t getting protected 

from the stuff that is coming into our market. 

Mr. ACHESON. Food safety is our mission at FDA. That is what 

we are all about. I mean you mentioned a lot of trade issues, but 

we are a public health agency. And our focus is on making sure 

that when consumers put food in their mouth, whether it is grown 

in your state or in a foreign country, it is safe. That is the key criteria. What do we need to get there, and what we need is preventative proactive approach. I agree with you. It is not there yet. 

Mr. BARROW. On the domestic front, that is our policy. We are 

doing it indirectly by regulating virtually every aspect of production. Mr. Day, do you have any insight as to whether or not I am 

barking up the right tree on this? Should we become more 

proactive with respect to the inspection on the foreign side of the 

ocean with respect to imports that are heading our way? 

Mr. DAY. Well, I think you raised some very important points, 

Congressman. On the food safety inspection service side, which, 

you know, regulates meat and eggs, you are absolutely correct. 

They go out. Their international services division goes out to every 

country that is exporting beef to this country, and they inspect to 

the standards established by FSIS as HACCP standards. 

And so the rest of the world knows exactly what they have to adhere to, and they go out, and they inspect—they don’t inspect every 

single plant. I think eventually they do, but they inspect a sampling of enough plants to give confidence in that system so that we 

can have that bilateral confidence in the system. 

On the fruit and vegetable side, it is a little more difficult. I 

think what industry is looking for is a federal solution that requires good ag practices, good handling practices that would cover 

both domestic and imported product. You know I have been in the 

trade side of things at USDA for a number of years before coming 

over to the Agricultural Marketing Services, and I remember a foreign trading partner complaining about not being able to export 

into the United States because we held them to a standard that we 

didn’t hold our own domestic folks to. And I think what you are describing is exactly the opposite. 

Mr. BARROW. Yes, exactly. 

25

Mr. DAY. And I think what industry is looking for and I think 

what everyone is looking for at the end of the day when Dr. Acheson finishes his Empire State Building is that we have something 

that covers all food, both domestic and imported. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. [Presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Kuhl. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge, and it is nice, as a Congressman from New York, to recognize that you recognize the importance of New York state to this whole process of prevention in 

building a system actually that will prevent what we all know is 

happening in California. But anyway, aside, I had another subcommittee hearing, and I didn’t have the benefit of being able to 

sit through your testimony and haven’t had a chance to read it either. 

So at this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to return my 5 minutes over to and yield to Mr. Neugebauer because I know he has 

some additional questions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And I thank the gentleman. I want to go back 

to, I think my colleague from Texas was talking about making sure 

that we do this on a risk-based analysis, and I think that is certainly the road we need to go down because we, you know, a shotgun approach, we do not have the resources to do. So we need to 

analyze where the greatest risk is, but let us talk about what that 

risk is right now. 

In a percentage of the total food supply that goes through the 

U.S. system today, the contamination percentage, I mean what percentage good are we? Are we 99 percent? Are we 98? Are we 90, 

80? When you look at the number, what number would you tell the 

American people today? Can you say 99 percent sure this is good, 

uncontaminated number? What is that number? I don’t want to put 

any words in anybody’s mouth? Mr. Day, you want to take a crack 

at that? 

Mr. DAY. I think I will just let Dr. Acheson handle that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. It is nice to have friends like you. 

Mr. DAY. I am not a food safety agency. 

Mr. ACHESON. Thank you. That is an excellent question. Is there 

a specific number? Obviously no, but if you think of it in the context of the degree of safety, of the billions of servings of food that 

are consumed in the United States every day by everyone of us in 

this room, three times a day. And the chairman explained how he 

had a foodborne illness recently, linked to the peanut butter. 

Just ask yourself how many meals have I eaten in the last year, 

and how many times have they made me sick? You are 99.9 something, something, something, but it is not where we want to be. We 

want to be close to 100 percent. We will never reach 100 percent. 

Let us not be unrealistic here. You are never going to be able to 

grow fresh produce in an open field in an open environment and 

guarantee 100 percent it is never going to have bugs on it that 

could make you sick. You need to keep pushing those frontiers 

back. So we are in great shape, but the goal is to make it better. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, and I don’t disagree, and I think particularly this is—one of the former colleagues were talking about, when 

we were talking about importation, and it is at 15 percent and deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
26

pending on what happens in years to come, that percentage may 

grow. I think food safety also becomes a national security issue, 

making sure that we know that the food we are importing is safe 

for Americans as well as the food that we produce domestically. 

We probably have more control over the domestic side of it than 

we do the imported side, and I think as we move forward, when 

we look at what your risk-base analysis is, I think you probably 

heard most of this panel say, and you were here last week I believe, and we talked about looking at how we are moving forward 

both at USDA and at FDA, making sure that the countries that we 

are buying or importing those foods from are following some of 

these same standards. With that in mind, I guess one of the questions I wanted to have is you all determining some of these updated best practices. How much industry involvement is going on 

in working with the industry in doing the research? Is there a collaborative environment in developing those? 

Mr. ACHESON. If I can respond to that first, I would say absolutely. I think there is a strong collaborative environment. Industry 

has a lot of expertise that we need to listen to and focus on and 

continue to work closely with them. We work with industry in the 

development of many of the guidelines and guidance documents 

that we have produced. So it is key, and I believe that there is a 

strong relationship with industry in these areas. 

Mr. DAY. And I would echo the collaboration with industry that 

has been immense in recent months, especially after the outbreak 

of E.coli in spinach. You saw the leadership of the state of California and the California industry out there to develop the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. 

In the area of research to help out FDA and Dr. Acheson and 

give a plug for the secretary’s Farm Bill proposals. We have proposed a billion dollars of research to be devoted to specialty crops, 

and perhaps as you review the Farm Bill, you might want to look 

at tailoring some of that toward the fundamental food safety questions that have been raised in this committee. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, that was my next question. You say it 

is moving forward. How do you propose to move some of that research money to fruit and vegetable? 

Mr. DAY. Well, we are certainly proposing that we increase the 

amount of research dollars spent on fruits and vegetables by a billion dollars in the next Farm Bill. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank you. 

Let me thank both of our witnesses. Thank you for your time, for 

being here this morning, and we thank you for coming. And we 

now will welcome the second panel to the table. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. DAY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Let me thank our panelists. I will, in the absence of the chairman, say to you that your full statement will be 

entered into the record. And we would ask each of you, after I have 

introduced you, to try to summarize it within 5 minutes. And we 

will begin with Dr. Robert Whitaker, Vice President of processing 

and technology for New Star Fresh Foods out of California. Our 

second panelist is Mr. Joe Pezzini. 

27

Mr. PEZZINI. Pezzini. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Pezzini, thank you. Vice President of operations 

for Ocean Mist Farms in California on behalf of the Western Growers Association. Dr. Martha Roberts, Personal Assistant to the Director of Florida Experimental Stations on behalf of the Florida Tomato Exchange in Florida. And Ms. Lorna Christie, Vice President 

of Produce Marketing Association in Delaware, and finally Ms. 

Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director of Food Safety, Center for Science 

in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. Dr. Whitaker, please 

begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT J. WHITAKER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, PROCESSING AND TECHNOLOGY, NEWSTAR FRESH 

FOODS, LLC, ON BEHALF OF UNITED FRESH PRODUCE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WHITAKER. Good morning, Mr. Etheridge and members of 

the committee. My name is Dr. Robert Whitaker, and I am vice 

president of processing technology for New Star Fresh Food, and 

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 

food distributors, retailers, and private label products for a number 

of retail customers. 

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 lead by a board of directors representing leaders from every sector of the industry, a 50-member 

food safety and technology counsel 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 a very timely hearing, giving the ongoing focus on food safety across the produce industry. 

Due to the food safety issues across our country 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 keen focus on produce food safety by the 

media, consumers, customers, growers, and processors. 

I have been asked to speak today about how our industry has 

changed with regard to food safety, and what changes still need to 

be made in the near term and where we go from here. So today 

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. 

And these include a true awareness and sensitivity to food safety 

has permeated the industry at every level from grower to harvester 

to processor, shipper, and customer. The buying community has 

begun to ask more questions about the suppliers’ food safety programs. General good agricultural practices, or GAPS, have 

morphed into commodity specific guidance for tomatoes, melons, 

28

and leafy greens. The process of developing commodity specific 

guidance for melons and tomatoes and GAP metrics in California 

for leafy greens has brought about several very important revelations for our industry. 

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. Absent sound science, we have had to use 

what data is available to us and our very best profession judgment 

to promulgate risk management strategies and metrics aimed towards 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 developed 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 have we solved the problem? 

I would suggest we are only in the first stages of a culture change 

that our industry must go through with regard to food safety. It is 

one thing to hold meeting to develop improved practices, to testify 

before Congress, share our collective experience in 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 to make GAP and GAP metrics more than just nice notebooks of information on our office bookshelves. As a nation, we 

need your help in driving scientific research to help prevent future 

outbreaks. Many of our associations and individual companies are 

stepping up to fund research, and that is commendable. 

Honestly, in order to reach the critical funding levels, we must 

have government help. 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 and better for their 

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. 

The single biggest change we can make in our industry to stimulate the food safety culture change we need is for the buying committee to recognize and only purchase from those suppliers that 

have a keen focus on food safety, have implemented GAPS, embraced the GAP metrics, and placed sound risk management principles and science-based decision making to operate their business 

daily and who continue to push the boundaries to make their products safer. 

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 cusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
29

tomers who call and request our food safety certificate. I am not 

sure what that is. Food safety programs are not gold-embroidered 

certificates that guarantee safety and received, can be filed away. 

They are multi-layered risk management strategies, verification 

procedures and people devoted to making the safest product 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 these facts about their 

growers are also needing to step up to this responsibility. 

The last area I was asked to comment on was to suggest what 

lies ahead for 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 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 market agreement and the GAP metrics they are based on. 

We will likely also see a coalescing of food safety programs to drive 

consistency and uniformity across our industry, working closely 

with industry groups representing multiple regions in the United 

States as well as importing countries, the FDA, USDA, and the Association of Food and Drug officials to help develop a consistent 

regulatory approach for produce food 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 safeties——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. We are going to need for you to wrap it up pretty quick please. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Okay, I will just—there are three key principles 

that we would like to drive home. We believe that produce food 

safety standards must be consistent for an individual produce commodity grown anywhere in the United States, and consumers must 

have confidence that the safety standards are the same no matter 

where the product was produced. We also believe that achieving 

consistent produce safety standards will require federal government oversight and responsibility. And we believe the FDA must 

determine appropriate nationwide safety standards. And lastly, we 

believe produce safety standards must allow for commodity-specific 

food safety practices based on the best available science. It is a 

highly diverse industry that is more aptly described as hundreds 

of different small industries wrapped up into one, and clearly one 

size won’t fit all. 

Over time, I believe the industry will be able to employ sciencebased 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 to 4 years. And as we begin to understand how pathogens attach themselves to produce, we can develop new sanitation strategies to more effectively remove——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITAKER. —pathogens. 

30

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. Let me remind each of you. Your full 

statement will be included in the record. Please try to keep it to 

5 minutes so the members will have time to ask questions. Otherwise, you will consume all the time. We will get no time to ask 

questions. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOE PEZZINI, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, OCEAN MIST FARMS, ON BEHALF OF WESTERN 

GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PEZZINI. Good morning, Congressman Etheridge. My name is 

Joe Pezzini. I am the vice president of operations for Ocean Mist 

Farms. Ocean Mist Farms is a family-owned company based in 

Castroville, California that has been producing vegetables since 

1924. We are committed to both the art and science of agriculture 

and have invested heavily in our plant breading, growing, harvesting, cooling, and shipping operations which are all state of the 

art. 

I am very proud to be able to say that Ocean Mist Farms has 

never had an outbreak of foodborne illnesses associated with any 

of our products. I am also testifying on behalf of the Western Growers Association. 

But no company can take food safety for granted, and when an 

outbreak does occur, it impacts industry as a whole and we all suffer. It is incumbent upon us as an industry to do all we can to prevent these outbreaks and to ensure that our products are safe, 

every bite, every time. That, I believe, is the focus of today’s hearing, and I want to thank you for allowing me to provide my 

thoughts on how the industry and government can collaborate to 

prevent future outbreaks in fresh produce. In my capacity as chairman of the newly created California Leafy Greens Marketing 

Agreement, I believe we are raising the bar for food safety in these 

commodities and that elements of this novel program can provide 

direction and guidance as we begin to develop approaches for improving food safety throughout the country. 

In essence, a marketing agreement is a legal agreement that 

binds signatories to a common purpose. In the case of California 

Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, that purpose is to certify the 

safe growing, handling, and shipping of leafy green products to consumers. This purpose is carried out by the industry first by developing an agreement on baseline good agricultural practices. Second, 

contracting with government to verify that these baseline practices 

are being met. And third, communicating to buyers that the products have met the requirements of the agreement. All of this is implemented under the penalty of law using industry funding. 

This collaborative partnership on the part of industry and government, while in its infancy, has three key elements that may be 

instructed for how to move forward on a national level. The first 

element is that industry in partnership with academic community 

is best positioned to develop the best food safety practices. 

The body of knowledge and science behind food safety and the 

practices that may be utilized to reduce risk in produce operations 

is changing rapidly. The industry and academic communities are 

partnering to advance the understanding of risk in pathways of 

contamination in production, harvesting, and processing operations. 

31

We are working to fill concurrent gaps in the understanding of the 

development of new tools to analyze risk, detect pathogens, and 

prevent contamination. This is best facilitated by the industry. It 

can revise their practices and requirements quickly and effectively, 

if not bound by government constraints inherent in the development of regulation. Today in California, over $4 million in industry 

funding has been committed to new research and education. 

A second element is government should play a key role in ensuring that industry is indeed walking the talk. While industry and 

academia should take the lead on developing practices and processes to prevent contamination, the government can and should 

play a fundamental role in verifying that the industry is indeed implementing the best practices throughout the supply chain. 

The solution as we have implemented in the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement in California is to have USDA-trained inspectors 

employed by the government do the audits. It is my opinion that 

without direct oversight of our industry by government, we will do 

little to rebuild and restore confidence of our industry and practices. 

And the third element is that industry and government should 

collaborate to enforce compliance and facilitate recognition in the 

marketplace. The Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement in California 

currently allows handlers to sign up voluntarily. While we have 

had great success, and the current signatories represent almost 100 

percent of the leafy greens produced and sold from California, we 

still have a few handlers that have not yet signed the agreement. 

To address the situation, we are researching the formation of a 

marketing order for handlers to ensure that all commercially handled leafy greens are included in the California system. Compliance 

with the program will be communicated in the marketplace using 

a mandatory service mark, which will be placed on sales documents. 

In addition, we will allow for use of a certification mark, which 

will be placed on packaging, including those offered at the consumer level. The marks would allow suppliers to communicate that 

their products and practices have been verified by government 

auditors to have met the requirements of the marketing agreement. 

To conclude, the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement of California is a model for how we can address food safety on a national 

level, which we must move toward. It can serve as a template for 

other commodities and producer groups to pursue. The marketing 

agreement meshes well within the goals and objectives of the 2004 

Produce Safety Action Plan issued by the FDA. In California, we 

have chosen to pursue this path with handlers as they account for 

all major commercial production and sales of leafy greens. In Arizona, handlers are currently pursuing the same tact, but not every 

state has the authority for marketing agreements or orders. 

The leafy greens producers in California and Arizona, which constitutes more than 90 percent of the U.S. crop would like to pursue 

this same pathway on a national focus. We would strongly recommend that this committee consideration legislation to allow for 

handler-based marketing agreements and orders at a national 

level. 

32

While we are proud of our food safety record, we remain resolute 

in our commitment to do everything feasible to prevent contamination. We look forward to working closely with this subcommittee to 

ensure that we are empowered to make certain we deliver products 

that are safe, every bite, every time. 

Thank you, Congressman Etheridge and the subcommittee. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, sir. And Dr. Roberts. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARTHA ROBERTS, PH.D., PERSONAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA TOMATOR EXCHANGE 

Ms. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge and members of the 

committee. I am Martha Roberts with the University of Florida, 

and I am here representing Reggie Brown with the Florida Tomato 

Exchange who is out of the country today. I have been involved in 

food regulatory programs, food safety programs for about 35 years, 

and I am here representing the fresh tomato industry of Florida, 

which provides 45 to 50 percent of all the fresh tomatoes in the domestic market to American consumers. 

The Florida industry actively responded on several fronts after 

they received a letter from the Food and Drug Administration in 

2004 that was directed to the lettuce industry and to the tomato 

industry, expressing FDA’s concerns on food safety. Not only did 

Florida work to respond, but the Florida Tomato Exchange also 

worked with other tomato groups throughout North America as a 

member of the North American Tomato Trade Working Group, or 

NATTWG, which also includes the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. 

Currently, we are working with the food safety division of the 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which 

is the regulatory agency in Florida responsible for food safety. To 

establish a mandatory program of food safety for tomatoes in Florida, the Florida state legislature has passed a bill mandating a food 

safety program, and it is on the governor’s desk for signature at 

this moment. The mandatory regulatory program will be the first 

of its kind in the country, and the regulations are being drawn up 

from a number of guidelines, including the ones you have heard of 

today, the FDA 1998 Guideline on Preventing and Minimizing Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fruits and Vegetables, and also 

the 2006 NATTWG commodity-specific food safety guidelines for tomatoes. 

To accomplish this, the Florida industry has worked very cooperatively with FDA and with USDA and the state department of 

agriculture and other members across the country to actively explore and aggressively proceed in our efforts to establish sciencebased regulation. The main goal is to prevent foodborne illness. Addressing this issue through science-based sound regulation allows 

for collaborative efforts to maintain public confidence, which is so 

critical. 

Every segment of the supply chain must evaluate their specific 

risk factors and the necessary policies and procedures to mitigate 

these, and this is what we are working toward with all segments 

of the industry, from packing, handling production to ensure that 

virtually all of the tomatoes currently pose no risk to human 

33

health. The focus needs to be on the relatively rare exceptions 

when microbial contamination occurs. And most importantly, as 

you have pointed out, Mr. Etheridge, we need the science. We need 

the research on which to base these decisions. So the establishment 

of uniform, science-based risk evaluations and mitigation procedures throughout the entire food chain is essential to providing the 

safest food supply system possible. 

Nationally mandated and monitored regulations present the best 

opportunity for accomplishing the goal of overall risk reduction, but 

such a program must be based on commodity-specific systems that 

implement risk-reducing processes and that address legitimate, 

science-based food safety concerns. 

The industry in both Florida and California has begun these efforts to develop functional good ag practices and Best Management 

Practices, and we are working together very strongly to ensure that 

these are uniform from coast to coast. Mandatory trace back capability is also a very key important part of this system and positive 

lot identification throughout the system that minimizes commingling as a part of the Florida program. 

Mandatory compliance to the good ag practices and BMPs 

throughout a national program of regulation and regulatory oversight can significantly enhance the risk reduction provided. The 

risk for fresh tomatoes will not go to zero however. With current 

technology, significant reductions can be achieved. Direct farm 

marketing of small quantities doesn’t pose a risk as such to the 

public health and should be carefully exempted. 

We are very pleased that we were able to provide a tomato forum 

that was sponsored by the University of Florida and the Florida tomato industry in November of 2006, and we brought together seven 

eastern states, including your state of North Carolina to ensure 

that we had commissioners of agriculture, commissioners of health, 

all of the universities, all of the industry working together with 

FDA and USDA to ensure that these factors were considered. 

Also, as you had mentioned earlier, we cooperated with the Joint 

Institute of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to have a research 

priority setting workshop, and we would offer to you, for the record, 

a list of the priority research areas that were identified for tomato 

food safety. 

In summary, the Florida tomato industry, along with other tomato groups such as the California tomato farmers, are proceeding 

on a path to improve the overall food safety environment for tomatoes. This can be accomplished with good science, common sense 

and cooperation of government and industry. 

We are very delighted that you are having this hearing and that 

the federal government is proceeding, but at the moment, federal 

regulations take time, and Florida is not waiting for these to develop but are actively enhancing the food safety of the tomatoes we 

produce by going forward with the mandatory program until the 

federal program is in place. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Dr. Roberts. Ms. Christie for 5 minutes. 

34

STATEMENT OF MS. LORNA CHRISTIE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PRODUCE MARKETING ASSOCIATION 

Ms. CHRISTIE. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

We certainly commend you for holding this hearing to address 

produce safety. I represent the Produce Marketing Association, the 

largest association representing the fresh produce industry from 

growers and processors to wholesalers and distributors to supermarkets and restaurants. 

The industry’s commitment to food safety did not begin on September 14, 2006. It actually started generations ago with American 

farmers whose traditions of excellence really formed the very foundation of today’s very sophisticated and global industry. The 

growth and complex nature of the produce supply chain demands 

that we approach food safety as a continuum and also as a collective responsibility. With that in mind, industry has spent tens of 

millions of dollars on the best scientific knowledge available to protect our products and our customers. 

We also know that the consumer confidence in our products is 

very fragile. We never have and we never will take that responsibility for granted. Doing so would be irresponsible to the public and 

harmful to our very own livelihoods. We have a vested interest in 

providing consumers with safe and healthy produce, as Mr. Pezzini 

has said, every bite every time. 

With that in mind, we helped develop the industry precursor to 

the good agricultural practices. We constantly are offering training 

and education so our members can develop robust food safety programs based on the best science available at this time. We collaborate with federal agencies and participate in industry coalitions to 

address produce safety. 

In working with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, 

we developed information technology practices that facilitate more 

rapid tracebacks. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to 

protect public health and rebuild consumer confidence. I know you 

share that goal, a goal that is essential in the fight to improve the 

nutritional health of America’s consumers. 

I would like to highlight some of the activities that PMA has 

been involved in on behalf of our members over the past several 

months. We have committed $2.75 million in additional resources 

to food safety. The chairman mentioned how important research is. 

We could not agree more. So we have launched the Center for 

Produce Safety at the University of California under the umbrella 

of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security. It will coordinate fund and disseminate produce safety research by bringing 

together experts from industry, government, and academia to find 

out how to stop product contamination. We have committed $2 million initially to help launch the center. These funds have already 

been matched by one industry company, and we expect more to follow. 

California has committed an additional half a million dollars. 

Please look closely at these commitments from the industry, the 

state, and the university and help us support the need for more research. We have committed funds for enhanced education and 

training as well, for all parts of the supply chain, including 

35

$200,000 to be used in training growers on good agricultural practices. 

And we, of course, applaud the work of other organizations, including the successful effort to establish a California Lettuce and 

Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement. In addition to the efforts I 

have outlined, we offer the following recommendations to address 

fresh produce safety. Efforts must be prioritized on risk, focusing 

on those commodities most likely to be associated with foodborne 

illness outbreaks. We need a strong Farm Bill that addresses the 

interests of the produce industry, including food safety research 

and technical assistance for companies that need it to maximize 

their food safety capabilities. 

The actions Congress takes on the farm bill will have direct implications for fresh produce safety. We all need to be specific in our 

language. When we are talking about risk, there are only a few 

commodities identified as more likely to be associated with food 

safety outbreaks. Consumer communication should be specific 

about products and questions and not portray all produce as risky. 

Hundreds of commodities have never been associated with a food 

safety outbreak. 

We need a robust, Federal, commodity-specific safety effort that 

is verifiable and applies to all products grown in the U.S. and 

abroad. This effort must be based on sound science and prioritized 

again by risk. And we, of course, look forward to partnering with 

Federal or state authorities to better define the traceability needs 

and those that are not being currently met by industry practices. 

Our first goal, however, is the public health, which is the foundation of all of our efforts, our food safety efforts of the past 20 years, 

our focus on consumer education and confidence, our commitment 

of resources to this issue, and our collaboration with everyone who 

can advance produce safety. It is our livelihood. It is also our moral 

obligation. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today, and, 

of course, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Ms. Christie. Ms. DeWaal. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CAROLINE SMITH DeWAAL, DIRECTOR OF 

FOOD SAFETY, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

Ms. DEWAAL. Thank you so much. I am director of food safety 

for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit health 

advocacy and education organization, focused on food safety and 

nutrition. We represent over 900,000 consumers in the U.S. and 

Canada and accept no government or industry funding. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 

76 million Americans get sick and 5,000 die each year from 

foodborne hazards in the United States. According to CSPI’s own 

database, which spans 15 years, fruits and vegetables and dishes 

made out of those products cause 13 percent of foodborne illness 

outbreaks and nearly 1 out of every 5 illnesses associated with 

those outbreaks. 

A series of produce outbreaks last fall provided a wake-up call 

for the public about the critical state of produce safety. Following 

the spinach outbreak that sickened 205 people and killed at least 

36

3, tomatoes and lettuce were both implicated in outbreaks sickening hundreds before year’s end. 

While the produce outbreaks of the fall 2006 have created this 

call for more action, large-scale produce outbreaks are not a new 

phenomenon in this country. Outbreaks from produce, both imported and domestic, have resulted in deaths, both severe and mild 

illnesses, and great market disruptions over the last 10 years. Domestic produce is largely unregulated, and FDA has done little 

more than coax, request, or warn producers to improve the safety 

of their products. 

Imported produce, however, has even less oversight, and these 

products are also associated with a long history of outbreaks. In my 

written testimony, I have discussed imported raspberries, which 

sickened thousands of consumers, strawberries in a school lunch 

program that resulted in hundreds of illnesses in school children, 

cantaloupes from Mexico also, outbreaks that continue for 3 years, 

as well as a very severe outbreak from Hepatitis A in raw onions, 

resulting in over 500 illnesses and 3 deaths in 2003. 

Fresh fruits and vegetables are at the center of a healthy diet, 

so it is critical that immediate steps are taken to improve their 

safety. CSPI has petitioned the FDA to take action to require that 

all fruit and vegetable producers and processors develop written 

plans to identify where contamination is likely to occur and how to 

prevent it. These plans should apply first to high-risk products, 

such as leafy green vegetables. 

Specifically, CSPI proposes a three-prong approach. First, FDA 

should require all growers and processors to keep written food 

plans, which are designed by the farmer to address the specific environmental conditions on the farm. 

Second, FDA should develop standardized criteria for use by the 

farmers for such items as water quality, manure use and management, and worker sanitation. 

Finally, the written plan should be audited at least once per 

growing season by FDA, the states, or the buyers of these products. 

And FDA should review these audits. 

The produce industry is not waiting for the FDA to take action 

and is moving forward in many important places with the states 

of California, Florida, the Association of Food and Drug Officials 

and others to develop specific and general standards for different 

commodities. These standards can ultimately provide a basis for 

FDA to take stronger regulatory action. 

However, a big part of this problem lies with FDA itself. Last 

fall’s produce outbreaks are just the latest symptom of an agency 

that is overwhelmed by responsibility but lacks the staff and resources to function effectively. Between 2003 and 2006, there was 

a 47 percent drop in Federal inspections, and FDA’s current food 

program is facing a shortfall of approximately $135 million. A Harris poll has documented the result of this. Consumers have actually 

lost confidence in FDA. It has dropped from around 60 percent confidence level in the agency to 35 percent since 2000. This is a true 

and precipitous decline in consumer confidence. 

In summary, to ensure safety and restore consumer confidence, 

prevention, early detection and control measures must be in place 

at every step of fresh produce production to help minimize food 

37

safety risks. Voluntary guidelines have not been effective to prevent the food safety problems related to fruits and vegetables. Congress should take this step to mandate the food safety oversight 

should be in place all the way from the farm to the table. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Ms. DeWaal. Appreciate very much 

you being here with us today. And thanks to all the members of 

the panel. I am sorry I was not present for all of your testimony, 

but I can assure you that I read it all last night that was submitted 

to us. And I will also review the record of today’s testimony so that 

we can be fully apprised of everything that you said. 

I want to start out by asking a question of Dr. Whitaker. Regarding the critical research questions of the day, who should conduct 

this research? How much should it cost, and what will the industry 

do to provide their part of this research? 

Mr. WHITAKER. I think that there is a consortium of people who 

are capable of conducting this research. I think much of it can be 

done in academia. There has been a number of research proposals 

that have been put forward this year through the USDA CSREES 

program that specifically address some of the food safety issues 

that we have talked to today. So I would say it is a partnership 

between academia and the industry. 

As was indicated in one of my panelists here, there have been 

a number of different people within the industry who have also 

stepped up and put funds together. The produce marketing association in conjunction with several of the processors in our industry 

have put money to form a fund for research on produce food safety 

that will ultimately go a long ways to helping us get very practical, 

hands-on field level type of research, which I think is important as 

we go forward. 

As far as to the level of funding, it is way beyond my purview 

to be to guess what exactly that is going to cost as we go forward. 

However, I can’t think of anything else we could spend our money 

on that would be—is less important because certainly the safety of 

our food is important to all of us, both from a consumer as well as 

on up through the processors. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Ms. DeWaal, in the testimony that you 

submitted to the committee, which I assume you presented today 

before I got here back from the floor, you mentioned in your written testimony that 76 million Americans have gotten sick, 325,000 

are hospitalized, and 5,000 die each year from foodborne hazards. 

Now, while I think that this problem is serious, I am not so sure 

that numbers aren’t misleading about the problem we are speaking 

about today because frankly some of those problems are caused by 

the mishandling in the home, mishandling in institutions and restaurants. Those aren’t farmers’ problems. Those are problems that 

may be documentable that people get sick by the food they consume, but it isn’t all the leafy green vegetables from the Salinas 

Valley that are causing those problems. 

So I want to make sure that while we are very responsible in 

this committee and in this Congress about dealing with the hazards that can be presented to the American public that the farmers 

that grow the best, safest, and healthiest fruits and vegetables in 

38

the world aren’t maligned. And so I would like you to speak to that 

question please. 

Ms. DEWAAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a very 

important question. First of all, 76 million cases of illness a year 

is too many. It is really 1 in 4 people each year may get sick, and 

I think you would be surprised, as we were, to see, as we look at 

outbreak data, which is a very small portion of this total pool of 

illnesses, there is a very large contribution. I mentioned 13 percent 

of outbreaks are caused by fruits and vegetables, and within these 

outbreaks, we have also noticed that the number of people who get 

sick is quite large per outbreak, about averaging around 45 to 50 

persons per outbreak versus about 20 to 30 for meat and poultry. 

The reason for that is probably because the outbreaks aren’t recognized earlier. They may be looking for E.coli in the hamburgers 

rather than in the lettuce. But the bottom line is that while it is 

probably a small proportion of the illnesses, it is still a very significant proportion. And I am sure the farmers don’t want to see it as 

a growing proportion. 

One other comment though. Consumers support farmers. There 

is absolutely no question that we want our food grown in the natural way on the farm, and that is not a question. The question is 

simply are there things farmers can be doing better, and I think 

the ones that have talked today would say there are, that would 

actually help to reduce these numbers. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Ms. DeWaal. I am going to go for a 

couple rounds of questions, but I know Mr. Etheridge may have to 

retire from the committee on a very temporary basis. But I am 

going to turn it over to him for 5 minutes of questioning at this 

point. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. Thank 

you for your indulgence. Dr. Whitaker, my first question is for you. 

How varied are food safety standards for fresh cut produce? And 

the reason I ask that question is because I think I understood you 

to say that these vary from state to state. And also what are your 

thoughts on the standards that are being put in on imported fresh 

fruits and vegetables? Does it vary from state to state? What are 

the standards as it relates to those coming in this country outside 

the United States? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, as far as the variability amongst food safety standards, most of the food safety programs that have been employed around the country are based off the FDA’s 1998 guidance 

to reduce microbial contamination in fruits and vegetables. There 

is very minor fluctuations away from that, but most of the programs that I have seen have been focused on that particular set of 

guidelines. 

Now, since that time, going back 2 or 3 years ago, some of those 

have been enhanced now for leafy greens, lettuces, melons, tomatoes. There is also one in production right now for green onions and 

herbs. They are basically an attempt to fortify those a little bit 

with very specific guidance for the specific processes that are used 

to develop those crops. 

And then lastly, the latest iteration, of course, is in California 

with the leafy greens documents, which have really attempted to 

put measurable metrics in place. So when we talk it, it is not good 

39

enough to say that the water quality should be appropriate agricultural use. Now, we actually define what that standard should be, 

and so that we can measure against it and verify against that as 

we produce our crops. And there are several other examples of 

that. 

As far as imports go, it really is dependent upon where in the 

world the products are produced. There are a number of different 

ways of looking at this. Certainly companies such as my own that 

import products from Mexico, we employ the very same standards 

in Mexico that we do in the United States. And so the very same 

high level of standards that we have put together on good agricultural practices are exactly what we impose upon ourselves as we 

produce our crops. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Does that also mean the same kind of pesticides 

et cetera that you use in Mexico that you use in the United States? 

Mr. WHITAKER. Yes, sir. Our company employs the same practices there. The market for our product is the United States, so we 

want to make sure that the chemicals, any treatments we use are 

absolutely appropriate for the United States. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Good. Thank you, sir. Ms. DeWaal, let me ask 

you a question as a consumer advocate. To what extent, as far as 

you know, that the CDC and the state departments of agriculture 

are coordinating with USDA and FDA on food safety? And if this 

is occurring, is it occurring at an adequate level from a consumer 

standpoint? 

Ms. DEWAAL. Representative Etheridge, we have been very concerned that food safety is really spread out too broadly in the federal government. The Centers for Disease Control——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. In your comments, would you also give your 

thoughts as it relates to one agency or one group handling all this? 

Ms. DEWAAL. Centers for Disease Control actually manages the 

outbreak investigation, which originate really at the state level. 

But they don’t even know until they identify the food that is causing the illness, they don’t know which federal agency to call it. Is 

it USDA if it is the meat? Or is it FDA if it is the spinach or the 

lettuce? We have long taken the position that we need to have a 

unified food safety system, which includes all products under the 

same umbrella, the same budget, and the same administrator or 

agency head. We don’t have that today. 

We have supported an effort to make this an independent agency 

with a direct line to the president. We think that is appropriate. 

It is how our environmental protection standards are handled 

today, and we believe that food safety deserves the same. We have 

not supported—and recently I issued a release saying that we don’t 

believe the Department of Agriculture is the right place, which I 

know some members of this committee have supported, to consolidate. And the reason is exactly what Mr. Day said earlier from the 

Agricultural Marketing Service. They are not a public health agency, and so it wouldn’t be correct to put a public health agency into 

that department. Thank you. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, ma’am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Kuhl. 

40

Mr. KUHL. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pezzini, I don’t 

want you to feel left out. Nobody is picking on you yet, so let me 

be the first. And actually I will throw you a big softball. Tell me 

why your industry preferred to use the California Leafy Greens 

Agreement rather than pursue Federal mandatory or state regulation? 

Mr. PEZZINI. Well, we felt in California that we had to act. We 

had to act quickly, deliberately but quickly. And so the fastest vehicle for getting food safety on a mandatory level was to use the marketing agreement vehicle. And so it was really a matter of expedience, and it was the easiest mechanism to put this in place. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay, and you also mentioned obviously that your industry is able to respond to research more quickly and efficiently, 

I think, in your testimony. The reasons why the industry is in the 

best position to develop the best management practices? 

Mr. PEZZINI. Well, I think because largely the industry is the one 

working with these practices. We have the expertise, we feel, to collaborate with government in coming up with these best practices. 

And truly the good agricultural practices, the new ones that have 

been accepted into the marketing agreement are a collaboration between the private and public sector. 

In fact, the whole marketing agreement ideas are a real collaboration. Here we have the industry coming forward with standards 

that have been developed in collaboration with government including the FDA and the Department of Health Services in California. 

And bringing those forward to have government auditors come out 

and verify that we are doing these on the farm. This is the first 

program that has government auditors out on the farm looking to 

see that good agricultural practices are been employed. 

It is an audit of process, and, I mean, this is where the rubber 

meets the road right here. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay, great. Appreciate your response. And, Mr. 

Whitaker and Dr. Roberts, I don’t want you to feel left out either. 

So I am particularly concerned about your support for the mandatory food safety standards, and it appears that your producers support that. I am curious as to whether or not your farmers would 

be willing to pay for those inspections. 

Mr. WHITAKER. In a sense, Congressman, we are already paying 

for it any time that we have an outbreak like we just had where 

it costs the industry $100 million. I know in my own company, it 

costs us almost $4 million, and we are just a small player. So in 

a way, we are paying a great price right now for this uncertainty. 

We are also audited frequently. I know that it may not appear 

that way, but for several years have had independent third-party 

audits on our ranches. It is something we are very used to. It is 

something we are very accustomed to having. It is not an unusual 

occurrence for us, and we recognize too that we are only as strong 

sometimes as our weakest link. So by having a federal program 

where everybody is subjected to the same standards, we basically 

take the competition part of it out of it, and you put in place a program where everybody has to follow the same standards. I think 

there is a lot of benefit to that for our industry. 

Mr. KUHL. Well, I can understand the benefit, and I think everybody in the room can. The question really comes down to can the 

41

Federal government—I mean you have heard some of my colleagues rail on the fact that there wasn’t mandatory and complete 

inspection on every facility and every farm across the world. And 

I think most of us agree that is a tremendous task, but the point 

is here you are asking for mandatory safety standards to be put in 

place. And the question really comes down to are your people willing to actually pay a price? Now, I know there is a price to be paid 

in the marketplace for this quote/unquote tinge, if you will, of having and growing unsafe products. That is a personal one, but this 

is a program that you are seeking, from my understanding of your 

testimony, that would actually require the Federal government to 

employ people to go out and actually do these kinds of things. 

And I am questioning as to whether or not your farmers, your 

producers, would be willing to pay a percentage or a total cost of 

that to actually implement the program. 

Mr. WHITAKER. Well, again, we are now. We are already paying 

for third-party audits to come through to our facilities and to our 

farms. Part of the marketing agreement, of course, will be also a 

fee associated with that. So it is something that we are living with 

already. I think most important on that it is not so much who pays 

but to have a standard that we can all work to so that we remove 

a lot of the competing entities and basically have a standard that 

we can work to make sure that our products are as safe as they 

can be. 

Mr. KUHL. Great. Dr. Roberts, would you like to speak to that? 

Ms. ROBERTS. Yes, I would. Thank you very much for the question. I agree with Dr. Whitaker that most of our tomato growers 

in Florida already are paying for individual third-party audits that 

are mandated by their buyers. However, they have also voluntarily 

chosen to offer to pay for the regulatory inspections that are set up 

under the new mandatory state regulatory program. They have 

voted to voluntarily adopt these good ag practices and BMPs until 

such time as the food safety regulatory program in the state can 

set up the mandatory audits. And then they will pay cost reimbursement for those because they feel like even though they already have the third-party audits, they feel for increased public 

confidence that it is being done properly. It is good to have that 

governmental oversight. 

Mr. KUHL. So it would be a cost of doing business then so to 

speak. 

Ms. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I am over my time, and I know 

you have some questions. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Kuhl. I do have some further 

questions. I would like to start off by asking the entire panel, especially from the producers’ perspective and the processors’ perspective. Is it not true that your customers, the grocery store chains 

and others, are requiring higher standards of the produce that they 

sell in their chains? And isn’t that part of some of this well, that 

the consumers are really demanding a higher level of security? For 

example, one grocery store chain in California that I am familiar 

with promotes that they test the fruits and vegetables that they 

sell in their store. 

42

Mr. WHITAKER. Yeah, you are right. I mean we have a number 

of different customers, all of whom have various food safety programs. Luckily, like I said before, most of them are based on GAP 

metrics and things like that. But in general we have had a long 

history of programs in place where we provide audits and data 

from our food safety programs to various retail customers as well 

as food service customers and club store customers. So it is something that is quite common right now in the industry. 

I will say since last September, the focus on this has heightened 

even more. There has been more oversight and more questions, 

which is a good thing for our industry. 

Mr. PEZZINI. Mr. Chairman, if I might add, Dr. Whitaker is right. 

We are all pushed by our customers. Everyone has a different idea 

of what they want, what their expectations are, but I think from 

a producer’s perspective, we want that to be science-based. If one 

company or the metrics say now that you have a 20-foot buffer zone 

for a particular adjacent land use, and then we have another customer come along and say well, I want 100-foot buffer or I want 

500 feet or 1,000 feet or a half mile. What is the science behind 

that? Are they asking something that is really not science based 

and is going to cost us all a great deal of money to implement. I 

mean that is really a critical issue for us. 

So what we are hoping for, through the marketing agreement, 

that we will establish a standardized audit and a standardized set 

of best practices that everyone will buy into because they will be 

science based and there will a rational reason for that buffer to be 

a certain distance. 

Mr. CARDOZA. That is exactly the reason why I asked the question. I will let the others of you respond as well, but that is exactly 

the reason why I asked the question because having uniformity—

you are only as good as your weakest link. And I recall two things. 

I mean I grew up in an agricultural region. I still live there. I used 

to work on weekends with my second father, a wonderful gentleman that owned a slaughterhouse. And he was an older man, 

and I would go and be his young boots on the ground, scurrying 

around helping him on weekends. 

And he talked about the fact that USDA inspectors were a real 

pain to him, but it was the cost of doing business. That he didn’t 

always like what they told him that he had to do, but it was—he 

would complain the entire afternoon about the USDA inspector. At 

the end of the day, he said but you know what, they do the right 

job, and they do the right thing, and they keep this industry 

healthier than it was before. 

And then he would lament the guy down the street who, under 

certain kinds of regulatory schemes, didn’t have to participate in 

the same thing because he was a small guy, and it gave the industry a bad name. And what I remember from my childhood, I think, 

is absolutely applicable to today’s climate. That the vast majority 

of producers can do everything right, but one small producer, for 

example, cannot get the message and can really mess things up for 

the entire industry. And isn’t that what you are speaking to in a 

large degree? 

Mr. PEZZINI. Absolutely. We have all been painted with the same 

broad brush, and yes, different producers have had different height 

43

and sense of food safety. But what we have tried to do with the 

marketing agreement is raise it up to a mandatory level. Companies still can go above and beyond that, but the question really is 

what they are doing really enhancing food safety or not? And that 

comes from the buying community as well. 

We are hoping in time that we can coalesce this database, this 

information, and really prove the best practices. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Very briefly for the rest. 

Ms. ROBERTS. If I could respond a little bit, we have all got responsibilities in food safety, all along the chain, you know from a 

consumer all the way back to the grower. And the food retail stores 

and the food processors have responsibilities in the way they handle that food, just as the grower and the person transporting and 

the person packing it. So every single individual area has to have 

some science-based practices that they are required to follow to ensure that the food is safe all the way through. 

And that is exactly what we need, and we are so pleased that 

we hear you talking about the need for increased research because 

we have identified some very key areas in tomato food safety that, 

quite frankly, there are no scientific answers on which to base the 

practices that we want to follow. And I think everyone on the panel 

would agree. At the moment, we are basing metrics on the best 

science available, but oftentimes we are basing it on the science of 

water or other scientific areas in the absence of some truly valid 

science to give us a sound foundation. 

So every one of these areas has food safety practices that they 

should be required to follow. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you for that. I think you are absolutely 

right, and I will have to tell the panel and the members of the committee as well that I was thoroughly disappointed today in FDA’s 

response to those questions of research and an action plan. We 

need significantly more research in this area. 

To admit to the committee today that they don’t know what 

caused the problem, and I understand some things are not just so 

knowable. But we have to figure out how pathogens come up the 

food chain. That is something that we have to understand, and that 

is something that the Federal government is truly responsible for 

doing for everyone in the country. It is not appropriate for just 

California Department of Food and Agriculture to do research 

when it is also going to benefit Florida. That is when the Federal 

government has traditionally stepped up its research roles, and the 

fact that we don’t have, in my mind, an adequate plan for how we 

are going to advance in the future speaks volumes on this problem. 

Now, I want to get back to Ms. Christie and allow her to speak, 

and then I will turn it over. 

Ms. CHRISTIE. Thank you. You know, the word science based 

really is the key factor here. It is also one of the reasons why PMA 

is so pleased to be able to create the center for produce safety at 

UC Davis. It is to actually accelerate the very much needed research and make sure that our industry members are actually all 

seeing the same research so we can utilize the best science available to help improve our practices. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Ms. DeWaal. 

44

Ms. DEWAAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make two 

quick points. One is your grandfather was right. Cheap food sells. 

So the problem with relying on the retail sector to police this program is that there will always be somebody selling the food that 

they didn’t buy. So it is critical to get a level playing field both domestically across the board and for imports that FDA step in and 

fill in these roles. 

The second thing I do want to bring to your attention though is 

that we have over 600 produce outbreaks in our database. So we 

have a very comprehensive look at the problem. Forty percent of 

the outbreaks are neuro-virus, which are human-transmitted problems. Another 25 percent are salmonella or E.coli. So as you look 

across the board, I mean whether they know how that specific 

E.coli got onto that specific spinach is less important to my mind 

than putting in place the standards for manure, for water, for farm 

worker sanitation that will address across the board the problems 

that we are seeing. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Well, I have to follow up on a couple points with 

regard to your answer just now. I think it is important to do both. 

I think it is important to have the standards, and I think it is important to understand what caused the problem because how do 

you develop the standards if you don’t know what caused the problem? And so there is a significant amount of research. It is not either/or, and that is the problem frankly I had with the FDA’s response is that it is not either/or. It is a comprehensive look at what 

is causing the problem and how do we build confidence in the system back to where it should be. 

Frankly, we have probably always had these challenges, but now 

we are learning more, and the media allows us to communicate 

these outbreaks much more effectively. And groups like yourselves 

are doing very responsible work, are compiling the data for us, and 

so we are learning more. 

So once we know, don’t we have the responsibility at that point 

to then do a better job with our practices? And I think the answer 

to all this, we will agree, is yes. So the problem is not so much in 

my mind finding fault for what has happened in the past, but I do 

find significant fault in how we don’t seem to have a plan for how 

to get to the better place with the exception of the California group 

that has self-imposed their own marketing system. And even they 

admit that I don’t think that they feel that is the definitive answer 

to this question, but that it needs more research and more discussion and more thoughtful communication that will bring us all together ultimately. 

I am going to let Mr. Kuhl ask a couple more questions, and then 

I am going to come back to you, Ms. DeWaal, because I want to 

talk about what department this really needs to go in and how we 

achieve that goal. 

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time. It 

is a question for the panel because it seems as though we have 

reached the point that everybody agrees that there is need for additional research and it would appear to me, and I think the chairman probably has a better handle on this, that Congress will be 

providing, in this next farm bill, some additional research. 

45

The question I am concerned about is, knowing that there is 

going to be some additional funding for research dealing with 

issues like this, how can we best coordinate that kind of additional 

supplement coming from the Federal government with what the industry has already done? And you probably all have a little bit different perspective, and that is why I am asking the question to you 

as a panel. Dr. Whitaker, do you want to start first? 

Mr. WHITAKER. One of the big things that we could do right 

straight off is just address some very basic questions with research 

about how these bugs get into our environment? Once they are on 

the food, how do they live there? How do we get them off? And how 

long do they persist in the environment? 

Certainly additional research funding, whether that be through 

the CSREES type of grant proposals that come through to academia or whether they are done institutionally by the USDA or the 

FDA, can help us address those specific issues. We need to make 

sure that the research that we do is practical, that can reach back 

out onto the farm so that we can come up with procedures or methodologies that we can put in place to mitigate against those occurrences happening on our food products. 

I think the apparatus exists through the traditional granting 

agencies. I think the focus is what is necessary. It seems that we 

haven’t really focused any research monies on food safety in the 

past, or at least to a large extent. And so if we can do that, I think 

there is plenty of very capable people out in academia and within 

the USDA, FDA and various agencies to conduct this type of research in collaboration with the industry. 

And I think that is really important. I think the industry needs 

to help play a role in setting some of these research priorities and 

helping the various researchers understand what that data means 

on a real-time, real-life farm experience. 

Mr. KUHL. Mr. Pezzini. 

Mr. PEZZINI. I would add that certainly a very good vehicle would 

be this Western Institute for Food Safety, the newly created Center 

for Produce Safety. That is a collaboration between academia, government, and the industry, and you have the three legs of that 

stool put together there. And that would be one great vehicle for 

initiating research, practical research, and Dr. Whitaker is absolutely right about that. It has to be something that can be implemented on the farm. It has to be good, practical research that has 

a lasting effect on food safety. 

Mr. KUHL. Dr. Roberts. 

Ms. ROBERTS. I fully agree that it has to be cooperative and collaborative. That is why, in cooperation with GIP SAM, we try to 

pull together all the researchers across the country from California 

to Florida to New York to North Carolina to try to at least look at 

the one commodity, tomatoes, first of all, identifying what research 

had already been done, trying to have these researchers cooperate 

with each other so that with the minimal resources we have we 

didn’t duplicate studies that were out there, and then to try to 

identify all the data gaps from both the industry’s perspective as 

well as the regulators as well as at the divisions themselves. 

46

It has to be collaborative. It has to be cooperative. Not only common sense, but it has to be economically feasible for someone to immediately adopt it and to enhance food safety. 

Mr. KUHL. Ms. Christie. 

Ms. CHRISTIE. I am not sure I could add anything as far as the 

need for the research and the type of research that the industry 

needs at this time. I can tell you that the goal of the center for 

produce safety, and one of the major goals, is to create a clearinghouse of existing research to prevent the duplication that my copanelists have talked about. 

We are actually meeting next month with industry leaders, academics, as well as members of the government. We actually have 

an ongoing survey right now to address these very issues that we 

are talking about and provide a global resource for anyone in the 

produce industry so they know what is actually ongoing, what has 

already been done. One of our members has already donated $1 

million of privately funded research that is ongoing to the CPS. 

That is unprecedented, and it gives you an example of the collaboration that is going on right now. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay, Ms. DeWaal. 

Ms. DEWAAL. Thank you. We have talked already about how a 

problem may originate on the farm, but you can make it worse or 

you can actually add problems to otherwise safe produce. So I think 

some of the key research that would help us in our advice to consumers is on the impact of washing. We know it won’t eliminate 

the hazard, but what kind of reductions can consumers expect by 

washing in the kitchen? 

The other question I have been asking is whether checking the 

first wash water in a triple wash operation could actually provide 

a critical control point. If you are checking that first wash water 

and eliminating contaminated product before it gets mixed in with 

other products from other farms, could that actually provide a significant new hurdle? 

And finally the impacts of refrigeration. We had to make some 

adjustments to our advice. We give advice to our 900,000 consumer 

members, and a lot of that gets picked up by the media. And we 

changed advice by telling consumers that refrigerating this freshcut produce is very, very important, but let us check the impact of 

that kind of advice. 

So I can see advice going, not only to the farm level, but also to 

the retail and to the consumer level. 

Mr. KUHL. Okay, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. I want to conclude this panel with this 

final series of questions, and I want to start with Ms. DeWaal in 

this. And I have suggested the USDA is the right agency. You suggested that you don’t think so, and I am going to assume that the 

reason why you don’t think so is because there is a marketing 

branch and a promotion branch to USDA as well as the food safety. 

But I am going to disagree with your premise for a little bit, and 

I want to challenge you. And then I want your feedback on it because as I talked about my experience growing up in the slaughterhouse, meat, poultry, and eggs are in fact regulated by USDA. And 

from my anecdotal response to you, you know that my second father wasn’t at all happy with having to go through the regulatory 

47

scrutiny and felt they were oftentimes too tough on plants like his 

in exactly that situation. 

Nobody likes to be the guy under the thumb of the regulator, but 

there is also the acknowledgement that regulation is necessary in 

cases like this. I would also submit to you that the USDA stamp 

of approval is the gold standard in organics and in meat. When you 

see that blue or purple label on meat, people feel much better 

about the fact that USDA is looking at it. And I am going to give 

you another reason why I believe USDA is the right. I believe, a 

I believe that you said or someone else, maybe it was the gentleman from FDA himself, said that American public believes that 

the farmers are the good guys in this process, that they want to 

do the right thing and they want to comply. 

And the problem, as I see it, is FDA is divorced from the farmer. 

And USDA actually has the components through the extension 

services and others that are routinely working on a day-to-day 

basis with farmers. So if USDA got information that a new practice 

was the best practice, they could easily disseminate that information where FDA doesn’t even have a mechanism to do that unless 

they go through another agency to do it. 

And so I would submit to you that if you separate the enforcement branch from the promotion branch, that they in fact can and 

will do a good job at USDA. Secondly, I would submit to you that, 

as the growers here and the packers and shippers have all mentioned, that they have an inherent self interest in making sure consumer confidence is up. And so when we are all trying to do the 

right thing, the question is how do we get to the right thing, and 

how do we ensure consumer confidence. And based on that premise 

that I have set up, I would like you all to comment, starting with 

Ms. DeWaal. 

Ms. DEWAAL. Thank you, and I appreciate your thoughtful question because it is a great one. The bottom line though, the difference that your grandfather was observing compared to what 

FDA is that they are operating under two different statutory structures, both of which are 100 years old, 101 this year. 

The Meat Inspection Act sets up a system whereby USDA looks 

at every single chicken carcass, beef carcass, and then they look at 

it additional times as that carcass is processed into the meat that 

we all consume. This is probably one of the most regulated industries in the world. It is a very intensive oversight system where the 

plant simply can’t operate, they can’t open their doors if it is a 

slaughter plant, until those USDA inspectors are online. And, yes, 

they do get that seal of approval. 

The FDA-regulated products, again, based on a law passed in 

1906, are much more passively regulated. They regulate products 

if they are adulterated or mislabeled. It is kind of after the fact, 

and that is why we have ended up with an agency who looks a lot 

like a fire department. They are running in to address the problems with spinach or the Taco John and Taco Bell outbreaks or the 

peanut butter problems, and now it is pet food and animal feed. 

But they look very much like a fire department because they 

simply don’t have the inspectors. USDA literally has almost 10 

times more inspectors than FDA does to regulate food commodities, 

much fewer in terms of the number of food commodities. 

48

My real issue, when it comes to USDA versus HHS versus an 

independent agency, is looking at what role will the secretary really play when it comes to food safety. And unfortunately, I have observed in this administration and others that the secretary of agriculture sees his or her principle mission as promoting agriculture 

products. 

You know this current secretary has spent far more time in 

Japan trying to get the Japanese to buy U.S. beef following BSE 

than he has on food safety issues in his tenure. And that tends to 

happen to most of the secretaries. So we have supported legislation 

sponsored by Congresswoman DeLauro and Senator Durbin. It is 

called the Safe Food Act. It does create a single, unified agency 

separate from both HHS and USDA. Thank you. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTIE. Well, this issue is still very much under discussion 

with the PMA. We believe in an appropriately funded FDA can do 

the job it needs to do to help protect the food supply. 

Ms. ROBERTS. I would say that the public nor the growers care 

which letters identify the agency. They just want to have a universal collaboratively decided position that promotes food safety. 

We are following the issue very closely with our industry. We believe that there should be a unified food policy for this country that 

involves food safety as one of its tenants. And we will just look to 

the wisdom of Congress and all of the agencies to see how this is 

dealt with. 

We work cooperatively with FDA, USDA, but there are so many 

other agencies that have a component of food safety. EPA is such 

a critical one with all of the chemical agents that we have to use. 

So it is not just those two agencies. So we strongly support a unified sound food safety policy for this country, and we look to the 

wisdom of Congress to sort this out. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Pezzini. 

Mr. PEZZINI. We have collaborated with all those agencies in establishing or creating the new good agricultural practices. I will 

say that we are using, and I mentioned this in my testimony, 

USDA-trained inspectors to do the auditing. They have the expertise on the farm. So from that perspective, the USDA is much more 

familiar with agriculture in its setting. 

Mr. WHITAKER. I would say I agree with a lot of what has already been said. My principle interaction, since I have been in the 

produce industry, has been with the FDA. And 1 of the things that 

I think that stands well for them is they do take a science-based 

approach to problem solving, and they have certainly shown a 

great deal of focus on food safety, as in recent years with a number 

of guidelines that have been issued that I went through today. But 

also onsite visits into Salinas on fact-finding tours to help develop 

the best food safety programs possible, but also to help educate 

themselves as to the problems that we see on the farm level. 

So again I think certainly what Mr. Pezzini said stands. We currently work with USDA inspectors because of their on-farm expertise. But a properly or appropriately funded FDA could also bring 

something to bear on this issue. 

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. Well, it is clear that there is still a lot 

of work to be done to further ensure American consumers have acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:20 Mar 10, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\DOCS\40684.TXT HAG2 PsN: JAMIE
49

cess to the safest food supply possible. We have the safest food supply available at this time, but all know that we can do better. However, in our zest for action, we must be careful not to create a regulatory environment that stifles the industry while failing to meet 

the goals of increased safety. I want to caution this because at 1 

point during the height of the spinach outbreak, I was informed 

that some grocers were considering requiring 8-foot fences around 

their suppliers’ lettuce farms. Not only was this a hasty idea that 

was ill conceived, but it would have offered little protection for further outbreaks and could have been extremely costly to farmers 

and to consumers. 

Food safety outbreaks are not the place of knee-jerk reactions 

even though that may be what some would like to see happen. Instead, I firmly believe that there is room for partnership and cooperation here in responding to food safety concerns. My colleagues 

in Congress, both in the House and the Senate and on both sides 

of the aisles, should learn from California’s leafy green industry, in 

my opinion, and Florida’s tomato industry on how to integrate 

science, research, institutional knowledge into a comprehensive industry-wide response. 

But we must also carefully examine the strengths and weaknesses of our current food safety structure, especially the utility of 

several regulatory agencies, as opposed to 1 central location, as Ms. 

DeWaal has testified. 

I look forward to continuing to dialogue on preventing foodborne 

illness, and I again thank the witnesses for their thoughtful comments and their helpful insight in this matter. You truly have 

helped us in our goal and effort to craft a more effective policy for 

the country. 

With that, under the rules of the committee, the record of today’s 

hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive additional material 

and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any 

questions posed by a member of the panel. 

This hearing of the subcommittee on horticulture and organic agriculture is thereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

50


40684.001
51


40684.002
52


40684.003
53


40684.004
54


40684.005
55


40684.006
56


40684.007
57


40684.008
58


40684.009
59


40684.010
60


40684.011
61


40684.012
62


40684.013
63


40684.014
64


40684.015
65


40684.016
66


40684.017
67


40684.018
68


40684.019
69


40684.020
70


40684.021
71


40684.022
72


40684.023
73


40684.024
74


40684.025
75


40684.026
76


40684.027
77


40684.028
78


40684.029
79


40684.030
80


40684.031
81


40684.032
82


40684.033
83


40684.034
84


40684.035
85


40684.036
86


40684.037
87


40684.038
88


40684.039
89


40684.040
90


40684.041
91


40684.042
92


40684.043
93


40684.044
94


40684.045
95


40684.046
96


40684.047
97


40684.048
98


40684.049
99


40684.050
100


40684.051
101


40684.052
102


40684.053
103


40684.054
104


40684.055
105


40684.056
106


40684.057
107


40684.058
108


40684.059
109


40684.060
110


40684.061
111


40684.062
112


40684.063
113

Æ


40684.064