Opinion: Speak Up Now On Food Safety
July 2, 2013 
The way FDA has proposed applying the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to tree fruit crops is in direct violation of the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
There’s nothing broken when it comes to the safety of eating tree fruit. I’ve talked to a few people who’ve been around the industry for a while, and I can’t find a single case of someone contracting a foodborne illness from eating a fresh piece of tree fruit.
However, the rules proposed in implementing FSMA call for tree fruits to be treated the same as crops such as leafy greens and cantaloupes, crops that have led to widespread outbreaks of foodborne illnesses so serious that people died as a result.
It should be noted here that to their credit, the growers of those crops have taken action, implementing programs such as the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement and, in June, the California Cantaloupe Advisory Board. They didn’t need federal regulators to tell them they had a problem. But neither do tree fruit growers, albeit for an entirely different reason. They don’t have a food safety problem.
It isn’t even unclear as to why they don’t have a problem. Nearly all the cases of foodborne illness have occurred because the vegetables or cucurbits in question came into contact with animal waste. I think even a bureaucrat can comprehend the fact that animal waste is rarely airborne, or at least not in the many orchards and vineyards I have walked. (Whew!)
So why treat tree fruit the same way as you would these ground-level crops? You can probably guess the answer to that one. It’s easier. Chris Schlect, the longtime president of the Northwest Horticultural Council, has spent a lot of time with the folks at FDA, and he says they favor the one-size-fits-all approach.
“They’re basically saying we are going to go with the precautionary principle, that even though there has been no specific incident with apples or oranges, it’s good practice to have these rules in place,” Schlect told me earlier this year. “Under their systematic approach, they decided to put all crops under one umbrella.”
There’s Still Time
There are other parts of FSMA that are also potentially onerous and deserve your attention. For example, the way FSMA treats water quality is impractical in many cases because if approved, any water that touches fruit has to meet municipal standards for pathogens. In many places, canal and river water is used for overhead sprinkling both to prevent frost in the winter and to cool the fruit in the summer.
Overall though, it’s important to note that these are only proposed rules. Initially there was a 120-day comment period that was to expire in May, but because of the outcry over the proposed rules, the comment period has been extended to Sept. 16.
What can you do? Well, it’s at times like these that state, regional, and national grower associations can be really valuable. Whether you’re a member of the Michigan State Horticultural Society or the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, the Washington State Horticultural Association or USApple, now is a good time to get in touch.
Leaders of these associations are wise to the ways of Washington, DC, and are comfortable in the Capitol. They will be closely monitoring the situation, and not only help inform you, but can help make you heard.
You can also comment on the Produce Safety Rule by going to http://1.usa.gov/12EuSG4.
Because your voice does count. Ask any association administrator and they will tell you they can talk until they’re blue in the face and not necessarily have the same impact as one single, sincere fruit grower.
Subscribe Today For
