TABLE O

Overview

General S

Recomm

 

 Area 1.

R

R

 Area 2

R

R

R

 Area 3

R

 

 Area 4

 S

Next Step

OF CONTE

w and Role o

Status of the

mendations – 

. Inspection

Recommenda

Recommenda

2. Food Safe

Recommenda

Recommenda

Recommenda

3. Maintaini

Recommenda

4. H2-A Ag

tatement 1 

ps 

ENTS 

of the USDA

e Specialty C

Fall 2015 

n Delays at P

ations 1- 5 

ation 6 

ety Working

ation 1 -2 

ation 3– 4 

ation 5 – 6 

ing operation

ation 1 

gricultural La

 

 

 

A Fruit and V

Crops Industr

Ports of Entry

g Group

nal continuit

abor Worker

1

 R

W

Vegetable In

ry 

y Working G

ty for USDA

r Program D

1400 Indep

Room 307

Washingto

dustry Advi

Group 

A Market Ne

During Fundi

pendence A

1-S, STOP

on, DC 202

sory Commi

ws 

ing Lapses 

September 2

Avenue, SW

 0201

250-0201 

ittee 2

 2

 3

 4

 5

 5

 6

 7

 8

 8

 9

015 1

W. 
September 2015 2

Overview and Role of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) first established the Fruit and Vegetable Industry 

Advisory Committee (Committee) in 2001, under the authority of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Secretary of Agriculture appoints 25 

members to the Committee and since its inception, has met 21 times and developed more than 

100 recommendations and statements on key issues related to the specialty crops industry. 

The scope of the Committee is to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable issues and 

provide recommendations to the Secretary on how the USDA can tailor programs to better meet 

the needs of the U.S. produce industry. The Committee is in the public interest, in view of the 

produce sector’s importance to the nation’s economy. 

The mission of the Committee is solely advisory, with the obligation of each member to duly 

represent their respective agricultural sectors in the industry. Their responsibility is to provide 

thoughtful and balanced recommendations to the Secretary on issues that impact the industry as 

well as their customers, and assist the USDA in formulating innovative and viable solutions to 

address them. The Committee meets twice per year in Washington, D.C., with additional 

teleconference calls. They report to the Secretary of Agriculture through the Under Secretary for 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and are managed by the Agricultural Marketing Service’s 

Specialty Crops Program. 

General Status of the Specialty Crops Industry 

The combination of global trade, demographic shifts, and changing consumer behavior compels 

the produce and floral industry to adapt and evolve at a brisk pace. Fresh produce ranks as one of 

the most frequently purchased perishable products, purchased approximately three times/week 

universally, according the Nielsen Perishables Group for the Produce Marketing Association.1 

Labor shortages, food safety and food security, drought and adverse environmental conditions, 

fluctuating market changes, and an increased vigilance for the detection of incoming pathogenic 

diseases and pests are just a few of the more critical issues facing the produce industry today. It 

is unlikely that the producer of yesterday and today will look and operate the same as those in the 

future. That being said, the average age of today’s farmer is 58.3 years old2, with a significant 

drop in farming interest. The number of Americans choosing careers in farming, particularly 

from today’s youth, is shrinking and domestic fruit and vegetable producers have reason to be 

concerned since this shortage and a lack of succession opportunities for existing farms affects the 

economy and the industry’s future. 

The availability of farm labor to harvest crops, along with new food safety regulations and 

compliance concerns keeps the list growing. For most crops, a harvest delayed by lack of labor 

means less profit for growers because even a short delay can reduce quality and price. Longer 

delays may mean that the entire crop is lost if the quality deteriorates to the point that it cannot 

be marketed, or the acreage goes fallow, and at worst, farm operations shut down.3 

1 2014, Nielsen Perishables Group, Nielsen Global Fresh Foods Report  

2 USDA NASS, 2012 Census of Agriculture, Preliminary Report

3 Calvin, Linda and Philip Martin, Philip, ERS, USDA 2012; the U.S. Produce Industry and Labor: Facing the Future in a Global

   Economy
September 2015 3

Evidence of consumer buying behavior changes is slowly emerging throughout the produce 

supply chain. A shift in customer food preferences towards fresh and local foods is materializing, 

along with an increase in produce consumption by younger consumers.4 These incremental 

changes may be attributed to a collection of programs and initiatives such as an increase in 

consumer health and nutrition awareness generated from commercial and institutional 

promotions; new food education/curricula in schools, as well as changes in school nutrition 

standards; commodity and trade marketing efforts; innovative and convenient (child friendly) 

packaging; availability of product; and recognition and accessibility of locally grown foods 

through food hubs, CSAs, and farmers markets. Demand for imported, non-traditional produce 

(avocadoes, mangos, etc.) has also flourished, as well as new market and trade opportunities for 

domestic producers. Over the years, it is clear that political leaders and Federal and State 

governments recognize producer’s growing need for financial and technical assistance, with the 

development of improved disaster (and drought) relief programs, rural broadband connectivity, 

crop insurance options, and commodity purchase programs which help to alleviate some of the 

environmental, climatic, and operational issues and obstacles that existing and new producers 

can experience. 

The 2014 Farm Bill included new and increased funding for specialty crops-related programs 

and services. Most recently, USDA awarded more than $113 million in grants to support farmers 

growing specialty crops through research, agricultural extension activities, and programs to 

increase demand, and address the needs of America's specialty crop industry. Over $72 million 

was allocated for the specialty crops block grant program to help enhance competition within the 

specialty crops industry; pest and disease management and disaster prevention funding increased 

to $62.5 million per year, which then increases to $75 million in fiscal year 2018 and beyond; 

and funding for the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) doubled to $80 million annually 

to help develop and research plant genetics, as well as methods to respond to food safety hazards, 

among others. 

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) will substantially alter the industry, touching every 

sector of the produce supply chain from farm-to-fork. The Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) will be implementing a total of seven major FSMA regulations that will affect how 

produce is grown, packed, processed, shipped and imported. Although FSMA is an FDA 

regulation, the USDA will be who the industry will refer to regarding education, implementation, 

and compliance to these new guidelines, so there is a need for programs and services to be 

reviewed, amended, and developed, to ensure our stakeholders are ready and prepared. 

Recommendations – Fall 2015 

In September 2015, the Committee adopted 14 recommendations at their meeting for the 

Secretary’s consideration. The Executive Summary provides an overview of the 

Recommendations, with the full versions included below. The Committee, which definitively 

represents every sector of the agricultural industry and whose composition is more diverse now 

than ever since its inception in 2001, agreed unanimously to move these recommendations 

forward to the Secretary for review, consideration, and potential action. 

4 2014, Nielsen Perishables Group, Nielsen Global Fresh Foods Report  
September 2015 4

Area 1. Inspection Delays at Ports of Entry Working Group 

Recommendation 1 

Increase the number of available inspectors and/or the number of shifts they work, with new 

inspector shifts matching the hours of port operations. Inspections should be available in the 

evenings, Saturdays, Sundays, and potentially three day weekends/government holidays when 

needed, with expanded hours of operation at ports of entry that are experiencing growth. 

Additionally, the number of “expert” agents with entomology and plant pathology knowledge at 

major ports of entry should also increase, along with expanded authority to make immediate 

decisions. USDA should ensure that at least one “expert” agent is available at every port of entry 

during hours of operation. Costs could be funded by charging importers “inspection user fees.” 

Arguably the most significant cause for import delays at ports of entry is the lack of sufficient 

resources available to federal regulatory agencies. The increased volume of entries into the 

country has stretched physical resources to their limit. 

Recommendation 2 

Increase the availability, functionality, and size of cargo inspecting facilities to better meet 

import demand. Set the minimum requirements for all inspection facilities to standards that are 

equal (if not superior) to those required of the private sector. These facilities must comply with 

minimum FSMA requirements. Funding these new facilities might be modeled from the “toll 

road” play book, with local governments partnering with the private sector to improve and/or to 

build inspection facilities in exchange for user fees. Those contractors would then collect a “toll” 

until the original cost of the project (plus a reasonable interest) is paid back. 

Recommendation 3 

Increase the availability of testing labs that deal with fresh fruit and vegetable issues such as 

pathogen testing and pesticide residue, and ensure that they are located close to every major port 

of entry. Expand the hours of operation of testing labs to include Saturdays and potentially 

overtime (where needed). Explore the possibility of certifying joint testing labs for both USDA 

and FDA usage, and empower them to make final decisions without the need to send samples 

back to Washington. Partner with the private sector to fund the creation of new labs, and 

possibly use a model similar to what is described in recommendation #2 if funding is limited. 

Recommendation 4 

There is a need for more importer education and programs designed to expedite the importation 

process (such as, CT Pass, NARP and FDA PREDICT) which are ineffective unless all parties in 

the importation process both know about them and use them. It would be helpful to add more 

detail (pictures, links and specific locations of the problematic findings) to Emergency Action 

Notifications so that importers can learn from their mistakes. USDA could educate custom 

brokers and pass information back to growers and importers to improve efficiency. Greater 

transparency is needed throughout the whole importation process to improve trust and 

cooperation between parties, with growers, importers and regulators working together. 

Recommendation 5 

Simplify federal government websites so existing information is easier to find. Increase the use 

of bullet point lists on specific subjects (and on specific commodities) and hide some of the 

detail and wordiness that currently exists in those pages. Update webpages in real time so 
September 2015 5

growers and importers know of specific issues affecting their commodities faster so corrective 

actions can be implemented before shipping their merchandise. 

Recommendation 6 

We ask the Secretary to reach out to the FDA, and the Customs and Border Patrol to coordinate 

and improve the flow of information and paperwork involved in the importation process. There 

is an opportunity to improve the overall efficiency of the importation system by optimizing the 

communication and paperwork flow between the regulating agencies. The new Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE) software is a step in the right direction though more can be 

done. Recent evidence reveals that the importation process for fresh fruits and vegetables is not 

working efficiently. Last year, inspection delays and rejections at various ports of entry cost the 

American economy hundreds of millions of dollars in lost merchandise. In addition to the actual 

economic cost, the potential threats to our national food and crop safety due to these 

inefficiencies are far more difficult to quantify. For example, right now, the Citrus Greening 

disease is impacting jobs and the income generated by this industry, and crops have been wiped 

out. It is imperative to review and resolve current importation procedural inefficiencies and apply 

appropriate protections to ensure national food and crop safety. 

Inspection delays for fresh fruits and vegetables at ports of entry are worrisome not only because 

of the actual economic losses they cause, but because they point to structural inefficiencies in our 

system that could leave the U.S. food and crop safety vulnerable. While steps to mitigate some of 

these problems are in progress, there are other small changes – low hanging fruit - that could be 

implemented immediately to help improve the efficiency of the system.

Area 2. Food Safety Working Group 

Recommendation 1 

Educate the entire fruit and vegetable supply chain about the FDA Produce Safety Rule (PSR) 

requirements. 

USDA and FDA should collaborate to educate the entire produce supply chain, including 

retailers, on the requirements on FDA’s PSR. This would include USDA consulting with its 

stakeholder community to assess information needs and the most effective means of delivering 

educational resources. 

Supplemental information needed relating to this recommendation: 

 Determine cost of developing and delivering an educational program, including the 

development and delivery of communication tools, and staff and travel costs 

 Determine source of funds for an educational program

Recommendation 2 

Educate the fruit and vegetable supply chain on the uses and value of USDA’s Audit programs 

and services.

USDA should educate the supply chain and consumers on its Good Agricultural Practices 

(GAPs) audit verification program. This would include defining the value, benefits, and costs of 

services, the GroupGAPs program, general applicability, outreach to StrikeForce states and 
September 2015 6

others, and the specific operational aspects of the various GAPs programs and services (e.g., 

Harmonized GAPs and commodity-specific GAPs). It would also include information on how 

the GAPs program can help supply chain participants meet the requirements of the PSR. USDA 

should enlist current GAPs users to provide testimonials on the value of GAPs audits. 

Supplemental information relating to this recommendation: 

 Determine cost of developing educational materials 

 Identify mechanism and format for delivery 

 Determine cost of participating in stakeholder trade shows, conferences, and meetings 

 Identify source of funds for development and delivery of educational materials 

Recommendation 3 

Seek commitment from FDA on inclusion of USDA GAPs program in FDA’s PSR 

implementation strategy.

USDA should seek a public, documented declaration from the FDA stating that the USDA GAPs 

Program is a critical and valued component of the FSMA Implementation Strategy for the PSR. 

Such a declaration of support would provide credible evidence to the stakeholder community of 

FDA’s support for “Leveraging existing mechanisms within the produce stakeholder 

community” in implementing PSR requirements. This would build on a long-standing 

interagency agreement between USDA and FDA as related to FSMA dating back to fiscal year 

2010. This includes having a USDA employee on long-term detail to FDA for the purpose of 

(but not exclusively) addressing FSMA-related issues. 

Secondly, the USDA should continue implementing, and complete on schedule by October 2016 

(which is well in advance of PSR implementation requirements), the Joint GAPs Review Project 

with FDA, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), and State 

partners. The Joint GAPs Review Project is also aimed at aligning the USDA GAPs program 

with the FDA’s PSR. 

Recommendation 4 

Cooperative Extensions and produce industry associations should have access to adequate 

funding for outreach to help farmers comply with the FDA PSR and Preventive Controls Rule 

(PCR) regulations, serving as vital resources for produce industry members to help address 

regulatory requirements. 

USDA should acknowledge the critical role played by the Cooperative Extension Service (CES) 

and local and national associations of produce industry members in working with growers, and 

providing practical solutions to the challenges they face, specifically with respect to the 

upcoming implementation of FDA’s FSMA regulations. FDA acknowledges the critical role that 

the CES and produce industry associations will play in helping farmers understand the USDA 

GAPs Program, which includes providing post-audit guidance, as well as the FSMA regulations. 

The CES and produce industry associations are trusted sources of information for many farmers 

and produce businesses, and many growers have expressed a desire for any required training to 

be delivered by their local CES personnel and/or local produce industry associations. Because 

these local agencies are so familiar with the actual production and marketing challenges faced by 

farmers and produce businesses in their regions, they are uniquely positioned to provide effective 

and meaningful food safety outreach and education services. 
September 2015 7

USDA should ensure that the CES is fully staffed with technically qualified extension specialists, 

educators, and agents who have on-farm produce safety knowledge, skills and abilities, and is 

adequately funded to help growers across the nation strive towards compliance with FSMA 

regulations. USDA should likewise ensure that adequate funding is available for industry 

associations to provide training and technical assistance appropriate to the scale and nature of the 

farms and businesses they serve. 

Supplemental information related to this recommendation: 

 Consider involving USDA REE Under Secretary Cathie Woteki who oversees the CES 

 Identify funding sources for CES staff 

 Identify funding sources for grants and cooperative agreements with local and national 

industry associations 

Recommendation 5 

Attain recognition of USDA GAPs audit program by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) to 

reduce audit fatigue and costs, and open new markets for specialty crops producers. 

USDA should seek GFSI recognition for its GAPs audit program. Many large and regional 

retailers require their suppliers to undergo an audit based on a GFSI-recognized system. The 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) works with individual retailers to provide audit services 

to their “buy local” programs. These retailers continuously ask AMS to include an addendum to 

its Harmonized Audit that includes the GFSI Global Markets for Primary Production 

requirements. Gaining GFSI recognition would eliminate the need for USDA to work with 

individual retailers on a case-by-case basis, and foster wider acceptance of the USDA GAPs 

Program by the buyer community. 

More than 4,000 specialty crops producers currently use the USDA GAPs Program for external 

verification of an implemented food safety system. Specialty crops producers recognize 

government auditors as a trusted source for unbiased and impartial food safety audits. 

Accreditation of USDA’s GAPs program would open new markets to these and other specialty 

crops producers. 

Recommendation 6 

Amend the fee structure for the USDA GAPs & Good Handling Practices (GAP&GHP) Program 

to ensure full cost recovery.

AMS should amend the fee structure for the USDA GAP&GHP/food safety audit programs to 

fully recover the costs associated with providing these services. AMS is incurring significant 

costs as it works to meet a 300 percent increase in requests for service in recent years, to align 

the USDA GAP&GHP Program with FSMA requirements, to meet GFSI requirements, and to 

prepare for accreditation to the ISO 17065 standard by the American National Standards 

Institute. AMS cannot sustain the USDA GAPs Program without a modification of the fee 

structure, which has not occurred since 2008. 

To promote the public interest and limit the financial impact of food safety audits on the farm 

and for businesses, funds should be appropriated in the federal budget to offset the cost to farms 

and businesses for any increase in fees that may be charged by USDA for the GAP&GHP 

Program. 
September 2015 8

Area 3. Marketing News Service

Recommendation 1 

The USDA Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee is asking for the Secretary’s 

support to assure that all workers and offices engaged in the AMS Market News Service be 

declared “essential employees” in the event of any current or future government shut-downs. 

During the last government shutdown, this function was closed and as a result, it was not 

possible for farmers, buyers, and sellers to receive needed daily pricing reports to make crucial 

business decisions about where and when to sell their commodities.

AMS Market News is the critical source that provides key price data for the commodity markets. 

The absence of this price data can create significant confusion in the commodity markets as well 

as contribute to a rapid contraction in trading volumes. During the last government shutdown in 

October 2013, the market news service had to stop gathering and publishing market prices since 

its staff was designated as “non-essential.” This caused the news service to completely cease 

operations until a temporary budget agreement could be reached. Meanwhile, farmers struggled 

to determine what constituted a fair price for their produce. Commodity futures fell on the 

Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) by a significant percentage (orange juice is sold on the 

CME). Once the shutdown was over, produce market reporters had a difficult time trying to 

capture domestic shipment data that was inaccessible during the shutdown. 

Area 4. H-2A certification and ongoing operations process 

Statement 1 

The Committee recognizes that the issues related to agricultural labor and the H-2A program are 

not under the purview of the Secretary of Agriculture and are overseen by the Department of 

Labor (DoL), but the urgency of this issue is clearly evident. Given the potential for a 

government shutdown at any time, specialty crops producers in particular are not only put in a 

very difficult position with regard to lapses in labor, but it could have devastating effects on the 

entire produce industry. 

During the last government shutdown, the Chicago National Processing Center (CNPC) was 

closed (the CNPC is the DOL office that must certify H-2A applications before they move 

forward to the US Customs and Immigration Service) resulting in thousands of delayed 

certifications and millions of dollars’ worth of lost crops. They too, were deemed “Nonessential.” If any upcoming shut-downs occur, it could result in the demise of many family farms 

throughout the U.S. The need for agricultural labor is so time-sensitive that these certification 

and operations processes are critically essential to the agricultural growing community. The 

specialty crops industry urgently needs your help to address these concerns with the leadership at 

the DoL. These types of operations are essential to the agricultural industry. 
September 2015 9

Next Steps - Spring 2016 

The Committee continues its mission into 2016, having established additional working groups to 

address new issues identified either by the members themselves, or by peers from within their 

respective agricultural sectors of the industry. The new working groups will focus on New 

Farmer Outreach, Education and Advocacy; Transportation and Port Infrastructure; Food Waste 

and Food Deserts; and Agricultural Broadband and Connectivity Deficiencies. In addition to the 

new groups, there are two existing working groups that will continue their work on Food 

Safety/FSMA Implementation, and Grant Funding and Research. Progress reports will be 

provided on the state of their recommendations sent to the Secretary (as requested by the 

Committee) as well as on their related subject matter. In addition, the workings group chairs, 

upon consensus by their working group members, may bring up any further new 

recommendations at the next full Committee meeting in spring 2016.