Produce associations unite against buyer consortium's food-safety guidelines
Produce associations unite against buyer consortium's food-safety guidelines
Speaking with one voice, 23 produce associations and commodity groups asked a buyer consortium to reconsider the effort it has launched to require suppliers to sign and comply with specific new food-safety guidelines.
Over the past several weeks, produce suppliers of Publix Super Markets, headquartered in Lakeland, FL, received a letter and a 19-page addendum with specific food-safety guidelines in areas such as sanitation, water quality and animal feedlot setbacks. Many suppliers received the letter from Publix or a foodservice-buying company named Avendra, but the letter said that the Food Safety Leadership Council, which is said to include Publix, Avendra LLC, Darden Restaurants, McDonald's Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Walt Disney World, developed the standards.
At least one produce supplier told The Produce News that he signed the document and then had to rescind his signature when a further vetting of the guidelines revealed that he could not be in compliance, especially with regard to the banned use of surface water.
Speaking on behalf of his members, Western Growers Association President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Nassif fired off his own letter to Publix (The Produce News, Nov. 12, page 1) on Nov. 6 calling the new standards "unreasonable, excessive and scientifically indefensible."
While numerous representatives of the supply community, including grower- shippers and even another regional association executive, privately applauded the strong stance that WGA took, there was a consensus that a more measured, united industry response was necessary.
A conference call attended by at least two dozen association and commodity board executives was organized. United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel said that there was general discussion about the contents of a response, and within a matter of a couple days, United wrote the letter, circulated it and had 23 signatures.
The letter was sent Nov. 14 to Larry Kohl of Walt Disney World, who was identified as the coordinator of the Food Safety Leadership Council. The industry letter expressed "our strongest concern about this document and its potential implementation," Said Mr. Stenzel. It said, in part, "The demands outlined in these individual companies' letters and the content of the FSLC document present neither a scientific approach to enhance food safety nor a respect for the produce, retail and foodservice industries' mutual commitment to deliver the safest-possible fresh fruits and vegetables to our consumers every day."
It asked the buyer group to "step back from this unilateral and unfounded direction to engage in a real scientific and professional dialogue with your produce suppliers, technical representatives from our industry's trade associations, academia and government."
The letter also identified specific flaws its signatories found in the document, most notably that it takes a broad-based approach to food-safety guidelines rather than a commodity-specific approach. In almost all the food-safety work that has been done thus far in the fresh produce industry, it is widely accepted that each commodity or commodity group needs to be addressed separately. For example, a potato that is cooked is not going to have the same food-safety issues as a raw salad item. An exposed fruit such as a strawberry is going to have far different issues than a fruit such as a cantaloupe that has a natural rind protecting it.
The letter also debated the document's specifications regarding the use of surface water. "On a practical level, you must know that some standards such as the water requirements outlined in the FSLC document cannot physically be achieved in many cases, even by world-class producers."
Another point of contention was the FSLC's mandates regarding buffer zones. The industry letter said, "Science today cannot tell us an exact distance, and we would therefore argue that expert consensus among industry, academia and government is the best way to address such unknown scientific questions until research can provide better evidence for risk-based decision-making. Otherwise, we are faced with an escalating, unscientific approach -- if a 100- foot buffer is good [then] a 1,000-foot buffer must be better. Or why not 1,000 yards; or perhaps a mile, or two, or three. This is indeed a slippery slope without real science to guide these judgments."
Mr. Stenzel said Tuesday, Nov. 20, that no official response had been received, but there were "backchannel discussions" between United's David Gombas, senior vice president for food safety and technology, and some of the technical staffers working for the various companies involved in the FSLC. In fact, the industry letter asked that the response be directed to Dr. Gombas.
Mr. Stenzel said that he was not expecting a formal reply, but rather was getting the sense that the industry's concerns were being heard. He anticipated a meeting with the FSLC "sooner [rather] than later" in which some of these specific points can be discussed. The United executive appeared confident that the buyer group would reconsider the broad-based approach. He said that the FSLC guidelines seemed to be based on the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement metrics, and he hoped that they would not be applied to all products.
Responding separately to an e-mail request from The Produce News before the industry had sent its joint letter, a Publix spokesperson defended the retailer's initial letter and the process that developed the FSLC guidelines. Dwaine Stevens wrote, in part, "The California Leafy Greens Marketing Order (sic) did show an improvement with the produce industry's overall food- safety efforts. The Food Safety Leadership Council intended to strengthen specific risk areas that were not addressed by the marketing order, such as strengthening the safety of irrigation water by removing E. coli and not allowing pathogens to be sprayed onto produce fields."
He added that not all states are operating under the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, indicating that the FSLC guidelines apply to all Publix suppliers. Mr. Stenzel said that the good that can come from this process is a continuation of the dialogue that should eventually lead to a national food- safety standard. He predicted that a commodity-specific, food-safety standard will be developed under the guidance of the Food & Drug Administration and suggested that a HACCP-type approach, which is used in the seafood industry, would make a good model.
Over the past several weeks, produce suppliers of Publix Super Markets, headquartered in Lakeland, FL, received a letter and a 19-page addendum with specific food-safety guidelines in areas such as sanitation, water quality and animal feedlot setbacks. Many suppliers received the letter from Publix or a foodservice-buying company named Avendra, but the letter said that the Food Safety Leadership Council, which is said to include Publix, Avendra LLC, Darden Restaurants, McDonald's Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Walt Disney World, developed the standards.
At least one produce supplier told The Produce News that he signed the document and then had to rescind his signature when a further vetting of the guidelines revealed that he could not be in compliance, especially with regard to the banned use of surface water.
Speaking on behalf of his members, Western Growers Association President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Nassif fired off his own letter to Publix (The Produce News, Nov. 12, page 1) on Nov. 6 calling the new standards "unreasonable, excessive and scientifically indefensible."
While numerous representatives of the supply community, including grower- shippers and even another regional association executive, privately applauded the strong stance that WGA took, there was a consensus that a more measured, united industry response was necessary.
A conference call attended by at least two dozen association and commodity board executives was organized. United Fresh Produce Association President Tom Stenzel said that there was general discussion about the contents of a response, and within a matter of a couple days, United wrote the letter, circulated it and had 23 signatures.
The letter was sent Nov. 14 to Larry Kohl of Walt Disney World, who was identified as the coordinator of the Food Safety Leadership Council. The industry letter expressed "our strongest concern about this document and its potential implementation," Said Mr. Stenzel. It said, in part, "The demands outlined in these individual companies' letters and the content of the FSLC document present neither a scientific approach to enhance food safety nor a respect for the produce, retail and foodservice industries' mutual commitment to deliver the safest-possible fresh fruits and vegetables to our consumers every day."
It asked the buyer group to "step back from this unilateral and unfounded direction to engage in a real scientific and professional dialogue with your produce suppliers, technical representatives from our industry's trade associations, academia and government."
The letter also identified specific flaws its signatories found in the document, most notably that it takes a broad-based approach to food-safety guidelines rather than a commodity-specific approach. In almost all the food-safety work that has been done thus far in the fresh produce industry, it is widely accepted that each commodity or commodity group needs to be addressed separately. For example, a potato that is cooked is not going to have the same food-safety issues as a raw salad item. An exposed fruit such as a strawberry is going to have far different issues than a fruit such as a cantaloupe that has a natural rind protecting it.
The letter also debated the document's specifications regarding the use of surface water. "On a practical level, you must know that some standards such as the water requirements outlined in the FSLC document cannot physically be achieved in many cases, even by world-class producers."
Another point of contention was the FSLC's mandates regarding buffer zones. The industry letter said, "Science today cannot tell us an exact distance, and we would therefore argue that expert consensus among industry, academia and government is the best way to address such unknown scientific questions until research can provide better evidence for risk-based decision-making. Otherwise, we are faced with an escalating, unscientific approach -- if a 100- foot buffer is good [then] a 1,000-foot buffer must be better. Or why not 1,000 yards; or perhaps a mile, or two, or three. This is indeed a slippery slope without real science to guide these judgments."
Mr. Stenzel said Tuesday, Nov. 20, that no official response had been received, but there were "backchannel discussions" between United's David Gombas, senior vice president for food safety and technology, and some of the technical staffers working for the various companies involved in the FSLC. In fact, the industry letter asked that the response be directed to Dr. Gombas.
Mr. Stenzel said that he was not expecting a formal reply, but rather was getting the sense that the industry's concerns were being heard. He anticipated a meeting with the FSLC "sooner [rather] than later" in which some of these specific points can be discussed. The United executive appeared confident that the buyer group would reconsider the broad-based approach. He said that the FSLC guidelines seemed to be based on the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement metrics, and he hoped that they would not be applied to all products.
Responding separately to an e-mail request from The Produce News before the industry had sent its joint letter, a Publix spokesperson defended the retailer's initial letter and the process that developed the FSLC guidelines. Dwaine Stevens wrote, in part, "The California Leafy Greens Marketing Order (sic) did show an improvement with the produce industry's overall food- safety efforts. The Food Safety Leadership Council intended to strengthen specific risk areas that were not addressed by the marketing order, such as strengthening the safety of irrigation water by removing E. coli and not allowing pathogens to be sprayed onto produce fields."
He added that not all states are operating under the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, indicating that the FSLC guidelines apply to all Publix suppliers. Mr. Stenzel said that the good that can come from this process is a continuation of the dialogue that should eventually lead to a national food- safety standard. He predicted that a commodity-specific, food-safety standard will be developed under the guidance of the Food & Drug Administration and suggested that a HACCP-type approach, which is used in the seafood industry, would make a good model.
