Wisconsin's Strategic Food Safety Plan

Transcription

1

2 PROJECT TEAM Project Advisors from Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: Teresa Cuperus, Economic Development Consultant; Lora Klenke, Bureau Director of Market Development; Steven Ingham, Division Administrator of Food Safety; Jeremy McPherson, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection; Tim Leege, Division of TCP, GAP/GHP program; Jill Ball, Division of Food Safety Contractor FamilyFarmed.org: Holly Haddad and Jim Slama Project Consultants: Ron Doetch and Margaret Krome, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute; Mosbah Kushad, University of Illinois; Warren King, Wellspring Management STAKEHOLDER TEAM Small Diversified Growers and Representatives: Jamie Wellhausen, Wellhausen Farms; Steve Pincus, Tipi Produce; Jennifer Borchardt, Harvest Moon Farms; Jai Kellum, King s Hill Farm; Rufus Haucke, Keewaydin Farms; Richard DeWilde, Harmony Valley Farm; Jane L. Hansen, UW-Extension (Local Foods Group); Harriet Behar, MOSES; Mary Jean Reading, Manager, Badgerland Produce Auction; Anna M. Maenner, WI Fresh Market Vegetable Growers Association and WI Apple Growers and WI Berry Growers; John Hendrickson, UW-Madison CIAS; Tom Cadwaller, UW-Extension; Kiera Mulvay, MACSAC Commercial Growers and Representatives: Dan Wangler, Sandhill Organics; Brian Igl, Igl Family Farm; Duane Maatz, WI Potato and Vegetable Growers Association; AJ Bussan, UW-Madison; Larry Alsum, Alsum Produce; Jeremie M. Pavelski, Heartland Farms Inc. Buyers and Representatives: Bob Bloomer, Chartwells Thompson Hospitality (Chicago Public Schools); John Vanek, Harvest Foods; Doug Wubben, UW-CIAS, WI State Specialist for Farm to School; Olivia Parry, Institutional Food Market Coalition; Andy Johnston, Willy Street Coop Produce Manager; Mary Jean Reading, Manager, Badgerland Produce Auction; Bob Scaman, Goodness Greeness; Larry Alsum, Alsum Produce; Brandon Scholz, Wisconsin Grocers Association; Maria Davis, REAP - Buy Fresh, Buy Local Food Safety Experts: Betsy Bihn, Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University, National GAPs Program Coordinator; Mosbah Kushad, University of IL Food Crops Extension Specialist and Postharvest Physiologist FUNDED BY: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) contracted with the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) under the FY08 Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) program to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crop producers in Wisconsin by assessing the food safety needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers and by developing best practices to meet the needs identified. Wisconsin DATCP issued an RFP and FamilyFarmed.org was awarded the contract to complete Phase One of the Project: Needs Assessment and Recommendations.

3 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 II. SURVEY METHOD, FINDINGS, ANALYSIS 6 AND RESPONDENT INTERVIEWS Prepared by Warren King III. SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 12 Prepared by Holly Haddad IV. STATUS OF FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION 20 Prepared by Margaret Krome V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPACT ANALYSIS 23 Prepared by Jim Slama

4 INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The overall goal of the Food Safety Project for the Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industry is to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crop producers in Wisconsin by assessing the food safety needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers and by developing best practices to meet the needs identified. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection contracted with FamilyFarmed.org to perform an analysis and devise recommendations regarding the current state of onfarm food safety within the Wisconsin produce industry. FamilyFarmed.org engaged industry representatives as stakeholders to participate in the needs assessment and contribute to overall project content and process. The needs assessment revealed that challenges exist for buyers, growers, distributors, and regulators. There is a growing demand for Wisconsin produce among many market sectors. Retailers, restaurants, schools, hospitals, distributors, and other wholesale buyers are having a difficult time meeting the demand for locally or regionally grown food. This poses a tremendous market opportunity for fruit and vegetable growers in Wisconsin. And, while the market opportunities are increasing, these same buyers want to be assured that food safety issues are addressed on the farm and throughout the supply chain. Research shows that commercial growers are responding to this by creating on-farm food safety plans and in many cases getting GAP/GHP-certified for food safety. For these growers the cost of the audits in time and money pose a problem, as do some of the technical constraints that are created in the process. In Wisconsin, one of the barriers of the GAP certification for small growers is that the program is designed to audit one crop at time. For diversified farms that are growing different fruits and vegetables, the audit process could be overwhelming. 4 FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE

5 Surveys indicate that few smaller growers are developing on-farm food safety plans and even fewer are getting GAP-certified. The responses indicate that assistance would be useful in the areas of food safety knowledge, technical skills, and organizational capacity needed to execute best practices for food safety. It is important to remember that implementation of an on-farm food safety plan or certification is currently voluntary. However, pending legislation could mandate increased regulations for fruit and vegetable growers. TAKING ACTION The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has voiced both concerns and support with the pending legislation and its potential affects on the fruit and vegetable industry in Wisconsin. In short, the administrator of the Food Safety Division, Steve Ingham, has offered comments to FDA Deputy Commissioner Mike Taylor regarding the legislation. In his comments he stated, While the development of commodity-specific guidance allows emphasis to be placed on preventive measures uniquely associated with a particular crop, diversified fruit and vegetable growers in our state may grow 30 to 50 different fruits and vegetables. These growers fear that having 30 to 50 sets of regulatory standards will be overwhelming. In addition, Steve utilized data gathered in the surveys to provide the FDA with an overview of the barriers that Wisconsin producers face. Regarding the development of an audit program, Steve comments, I think a thirdparty certification program will only succeed if it is government-organized (perhaps like the National Organic Program) and works from objective standards that are both adaptable to localized conditions and developed by consensus. For a full look at Steve s comments, visit In addition, this project report includes a recommendation section that suggests some key areas in which the State of Wisconsin and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection can more proactively support on-farm food safety in the produce industry. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPACT ANALYSIS The recommendations that follow are intended to meet the following goals: Z Assist the Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industry in meeting market demands for food safety. Z Enhance the competitiveness of Wisconsin fresh fruit and vegetable producers. Z Meet the needs identified in assessment phase of this project. Z Include tools, standards, and/or practices that adhere to federal level regulations and meet the needs of producers, food safety experts, and buyers. These recommendations address the identified needs and will benefit small, diversified growers, commercial growers, and buyers within the state. They are organized as a new strategy to be explored and as tools and tactics to be continued and expanded upon. A NEW STRATEGY TO BE EXPLORED Recommendation One: Explore the establishment of a Wisconsin Produce Innovation Center, from identifying produce market needs across the supply chain to piloting one-on-one technical assistance and/or a grower hotline. TOOLS AND TACTICS TO BE CONTINUED, CREATED OR EXPANDED UPON: Recommendation Two: Develop and promote a webbased tool to assist Wisconsin fruit and vegetable growers in learning about food safety, from Why should I be concerned? to What are best practices? to becoming GAP/GHP-certified for food safety. Recommendation Three: Create pamphlets and educational materials that inform growers and buyers about specific on-farm food safety risks and how they can mitigate the risks. Develop an outreach and communications plan to promote and disseminate the materials. Recommendation Four: Continue existing and implement new education and training programs to relay technical information and best practices to growers using direct and train the trainer education for agricultural professionals. Further explore how to engage buyers in training and education efforts at levels where interest was indicated (i.e., buying and giving growers a food safety manual and hosting/presenting at a grower workshop). Recommendation Five: Continue to offer and promote a cost-sharing program for GAP/GHP food safety certification. The authors of this report assert that with implementation of some or all of the above recommendations, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection stands to greatly assist the Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Industry in meeting market demands for on-farm food safety and thus enhance the competitiveness of Wisconsin fresh fruit and vegetable producers. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE 5

6 SURVEY METHOD, FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RESPONDENT INTERVIEWS SURVEY METHOD The process began with a needs assessment that was submitted to DATCP for approval along with the formation of a project stakeholder team consisting of five food safety industry experts;10 small diversified producers; five commercial producers; and 10 industry buyers for both small and commercial producers. In conjunction with project partners and advisors, FamilyFarmed.org then distributed surveys and conducted follow-up phone interviews to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the status of food safety practices and the food safety needs of fresh fruit and vegetable producers and food buyers in Wisconsin. Given the time and budget limitations of the project, they decided to conduct an electronic survey. The e-survey tool allowed for confidentiality on the part of respondents, the segmentation of data, and the charting of results. The survey was sent via to a large group of small, diversified producers, commercial growers, their respective buyers, and industry representatives. The intent was to make the assessment of needs, and ultimately the recommendations, a more comprehensive, accurate, and well-informed analysis. We were able to reach this larger audience by utilizing the extensive networks of the project stakeholders and of MFAI, MOSES, Institutional Food Market Coalition, and other groups and representatives along with industry buyers. The goal was to reach beyond the 10 small, diversified producer stakeholder surveys and obtain another 25 surveys; to obtain an additional 10 commercial grower surveys beyond the stakeholder group of 5; and reach an additional 10 industry buyers beyond the stakeholder group of 10. The overall response far exceeded our targets of 35 small growers and 20 buyers. Although we did not meet our target of 15 commercial growers, we satisfied the minimum required of 5. The survey was open to all respondents from December 7, 2009 through February 22, There was a total of 139 respondents to the survey, including 78 growers and 61 buyers. Of the growers, 54 indicated they were small growers, 9 self-identified as commercial growers, and the balance either did not indicate which type of grower group they belong to (8), had severely incomplete surveys that were not analyzed (5), or were filtered out entirely because they were not Wisconsin farmers (2). The diversity of the grower respondents was sufficient to extrapolate into an analysis and, when coupled with phone interviews, to develop recommendations. Because the buyer respondents were largely institutional buyers (49 of 61), we selected a more broad pool of buyers to interview to balance the needs assessment data and develop appropriate recommendations. 6 FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE

7 KEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Our analysis of the data focuses on grower responses to three key questions: (1) How do you market your fresh fruits and vegetables; (2) What actions do you take on the farm regarding food safety; and (3) What can the State of Wisconsin do to help you meet your food safety goals? These questions were chosen for a number of reasons: Z Marketing patterns give insight into the operational sophistication of growers; Z Familiarity with any third-party audit process likely impacts the approach taken in delivering on farm food safety training; and, Z Understanding the extent to which on-farm food safety guidelines are already being followed helps to identify risks and focus areas for training. Further, the respondents among small growers were broken down into two groups; those who have had some type of on farm audit by a third party and those who have not. They are identified as Small A/Yes and Small B/ No in the survey results analysis. This division was done to analyze any significant differences between the two groups responses. SMALL A/YES GROWER FINDINGS This group totaled 18 respondents and has an average farming experience of over 10 years. There are 5 respondents with fewer than 5 years experience as farmers. Most grow more than 20 different crops with 6 respondents growing more than 50. Just under 50% operate diversified farms that include animals, and almost 90% employ seasonal farm labor. These growers sold predominantly through farmers market and CSA channels, with about half reporting some sales to retailers, restaurants, and institutions. In addition, 60% of respondents reported annual sales of more than $50,000 with about 33% reporting sales of $100,000+. In regard to on-farm food safety practices, 94% of respondents reported cooling produce immediately after harvest and keeping it refrigerated, 89% state that produce is clearly identified as coming from their farms, and 94% use composted manures. Less than 30% of respondents with seasonal workers are providing infield sanitation facilities with potable water and soap. Only 11% test or disinfect wash water and about 70% are testing irrigation water. Under half are minimizing contact between animals and produce fields and just over half are cleaning harvest tools and equipment. The respondents generally want to see the State of Wisconsin help them with a cost-sharing program, offer technical assistance and provide more information about the various audits available and the third parties that conduct audits. Respondents are also concerned FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE about increasing regulation, paperwork, and cost to small farm operations. SMALL B/NO GROWER FINDINGS This group totaled 29 respondents, with 15 having under 10 years of farming experience and 14 having over 10 years. Most grow more than 10 different crops, about 40% operate diversified farms that include animals, and one half employ seasonal farm labor. These growers sold predominantly through farmers market channels, though some reported some sales through an on-farm farm stand or to retailers, wholesalers, restaurants, and institutions. Fifteen respondents reported annual sales of less than $10,000 but 4 reported sales of $100,000+. In regard to on-farm food safety practices, 65% of respondents reported cooling produce immediately after harvest and 62% are keeping it refrigerated; 58% report minimizing contact between animals and produce fields (38% marked not applicable ); and 81% responded that they clearly identify produce that comes from their farms. Only 23% of respondents with seasonal workers are providing in-field sanitation facilities with potable water and soap (42% marked not applicable ). About 54% stated they test irrigation and/or wash water, 35% treat it, 35% use composted manures (31% marked not applicable ), and 54% reported cleaning harvest tools. The respondents generally want to see the State of Wisconsin help by making sure that any on-farm food safety regulation is aimed at large growers, not small growers. Respondents are concerned that food safety legislation/regulations, whether intentionally or unintentially, may reduce markets for small growers. ANALYSIS- SMALL GROWERS Z Respondents are incorporating a number of important on-farm food safety practices into their operations. This should make it easier to target any future training. Z Small A growers are packing their own produce but very few are disinfecting or testing wash water. This is a potential source for contamination. Z The dominant use of direct marketing channels limits the interest of respondents in becoming GAP/GHPcertified. Although there is concern about the impact of food safety legislation, they are generally feeling no pressure from customers to become certified. Z There are only two growers who have participated in food safety audits and a small percentage that are planning to develop food safety plans. Small growers would probably have a difficult time meeting mandatory food safety regulations in the short term. 7

8 Z The respondents express a general opinion that small growers are not to blame for food safety issues, that knowing their customers is the best way to ensure food safety, and that for some, organic certification is enough regulation to guarantee food safety. PHONE INTERVIEWS SMALL GROWERS n How did you go about assessing food safety on the farm, and what tools did you use? We are just mindful about food safety in all our farm operations. We work to avoid cross-contamination. n You mentioned attending a food safety workshop put on by MOSES; was there a certificate of training? No it was a breakout session at a conference. Wasn t really formal training. n What additional training do you need to complete an on-farm food safety plan and prepare for an audit? A workshop that s geared to my enterprises; on-farm poultry processing and produce handling. It also needs to be appropriate to my scale. n What role do you think Extension can/should play in assisting growers? People look to Extension for help. They should be a resource that s available and wellequipped. We need to know what s out there on websites and publications that could be useful in understanding on-farm food safety guidelines. n You said in the survey that you aren t interested in training. Why? I don t have time. The training is not usually specific enough and I don t want to spend the money. Any training needs to be focused on the type of markets we sell to. Partnering with a group like MACSAC to deliver the training would be a good idea. n What should change about the GAP/GHP certification process? It should be a whole farm approach like organic certification instead of single crops. This would make more sense for small diversified growers. n What type of cost share program would you like to see? Something like the one for organic certification. There also needs to be some type of grant program to support infrastructure upgrades needed for GAP certification. The wholesale markets don t pay enough to cover those costs and the CSA market doesn t care if you are GAP-certified or not. There needs to be this type of financial support for more growers to get GAP-certified. n What else can be done? Consider a self-audit food safety program for small growers. This would acknowledge those that are doing the right practices but do not have high costs or record-keeping time. There also needs to be some type of education about food safety in general so some growers can learn more about what s going on. n Why aren t you GAP-certified? It s not a requirement of the CSA or restaurant customers. I also know very little about GAP guidelines. n Are you interested in training? Yes, I m very interested. I think very few growers understand what GAP certification is about. n What type of food safety guidelines would you consider to be small farm-friendly? Anything that is easy to understand and addresses the issues appropriate for small farms like hygiene and sanitation. Needs to help farmers set up a plan or protocol without excess burden like buying expensive equipment. Those farmers will never recoup the cost in the market. Same goes for upgrades to facilities. We already keep really thorough records with organic certification and that should be enough. Our customers know where their food comes from and they trust we have safe practices and are taking good care of the soil and water. n What type of help do you need to develop a food safety plan? I had to call all over to even find any information about GAP. Local extension office was of little help and we are in a progressive food county. Information on the website is all over the place and there s no direction as to what may apply for Wisconsin or the region. n How would you like to see information and assistance delivered? Start with a checklist or FAQ that would help growers decide if they even need GAP/GHP certification and if so which modules should be completed. Has to be available off-line and on the web. 1-2 pager needs to be available at extension offices. Extension needs to have a list of resources, estimated costs, available assistance, etc. COMMERCIAL GROWER FINDINGS Of the 9 commercial growers, 6 farm over 100 acres; 8 have been farming for over 10 years, and 5 of those have over 20 years of farming experience. Five grow 1to 5 different fruits and vegetables with only 1 reporting they grow more than 50 crops. In addition, 7 raise animals on their farm and all reported having seasonal employees. (Five pack their own produce and all utilize a packing facility/shed. Five respondents reported sales of over $100,000 with 3 of those reporting over $500,000. Sales channels reported included farmers markets, restaurants, and retailers, although those with concentrated outlets sold more through on-farm sales, wholesalers, distributors, aggregators, and processors. Four respondents reported having participated in a food safety audit, yet only one reported having an onfarm food safety plan. Two stated that the certification was a requirement by their buyer. Of those who have not participated in an audit, all responded that it was 8 FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE

9 Z Growers are very receptive to assistance from DATCP, buyers, and produce associations Z Growers want assistance primarily with understanding and managing records, with food safety information, and with farm-level technical issues. not critical for how they market their produce. All respondents are in some stage of assessing their on-farm food safety risks. Five expressed concern over pending federal legislation. About 89% report testing irrigation/wash water while 22% treat/disinfect it. 56% report cooling produce immediately and storing it under refrigeration. One half report providing sanitation facilities in the field, regularly sanitizing tools and equipment, and clearly identifying produce as coming from their farm. Less than half report using composted manure. Those who have participated in an audit reported that DATCP, the USDA, associations, and their buyers were most helpful. Commercial growers recommend that the State of Wisconsin assist with harmonization of food safety and record-keeping requirements, assist with farm-level GAP training and record keeping, and provide information in a timely and easily accessible (online) format. They were supportive of cost-share, with 3 of 5 respondents saying they would pursue food safety certification if the cost were subsidized. Also, most cited that print and online training guides and workshops would be helpful. ANALYSIS COMMERCIAL GROWERS (Response rates were limited but sufficient to provide some analysis.) Z Buyer/preferred sales channel demand is a primary motivator for participating in a food safety certification program, though significant interest was shown in taking some level of action to address onfarm food safety. Z Commercial growers have incorporated some food safety practices into their operations but only one-half are marking produce sold as coming from their farm. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE PHONE INTERVIEWS COMMERCIAL GROWERS n What s driving multiple food safety audits and certifications? It s coming from the customers. The potato processors have one set of requirements, the wholesalers one set and the retailers grocers have another. All are using third parties like AIB,SGS and Primus to do the audits. The potato processer gives you guidelines and a template that you have to follow. Some require HACCP plans or that the packer be SQF-certified. It s a lot of paperwork to manage and it s expensive. n Where are growers going for help? The WFVGA has been helpful in getting the processor requirements out there and setting up some training. The GAP auditor up in Steven s Point has come in to talk with us and has provided training at no charge. n What else could the State do to help? A cost-share program that covers the independent audit would help. The SQF certification costs as much as three other audits. They could also have more GHP auditors. I think the level of demand has taken them by surprise. n Which audits have you had to complete? Both CERES and GAP. CERES is very helpful. You get a lot of education as part of the process. They let you know what other growers are doing and even recommended a cleaning agent for our tools. GAP is more pass/fail. After the flood two years ago, our retail buyer required that a GAP certifier inspect the field for damage. n Is there anything else different about the audits? GAP certifies individual crops which on a farm like ours with so many varieties makes the process really tough. n What can the State do to help? From a training standpoint, I think the growers groups have been forced to fill the void. WPVGA has manuals and training on GAP/GHP. It s almost too late for the State to assist these larger growers. What they can do is bring the buyers and growers together to discuss the requirements and to work together. The impact on the growers is huge but it s all driven by the buyers. There needs to be face-to-face dialogue instead. n Why do you think buyers keep adding on requirements? It s perceived risk and its marketing. They want to promote what they are doing to their customers and try to differentiate themselves. None of the benefit is getting passed back to me. I get the same prices I did ten years ago. 9

10 n How do you manage the related paperwork? We have a large enough operation that I can dedicate as much of someone s time as needed. But most growers need a lot of help. It takes a lot of time and the costs are becoming a burden. The other thing is that produce growers are under more regulation than say meat or cheese processors. Public health has us testing for bacteria but they are asking others to do the same. n What are your biggest challenges in implementing food safety? The record keeping and the amount of time it takes. There doesn t seem to be an end in sight to what buyers are asking for. It s going beyond safety or sustainability to trying to manage my farm. The connection to making food safer is tenuous in some cases. I m a steward of the land, water, and environment. I have to be. n Why are some buyers asking for HACCP Plans Sustainability Audits? I think it somehow verifies success to them. I the grower can provide a HACCP plan beyond food safety certification, It s another level of assurance. n Where do you think the State can help commercial growers? Standardize or harmonize the information requests and requirements. Work with the industry to figure out what s needed and what s not to make food safer. n What tools did you use to get ready for a food safety audit? I thought the PRIMUS website was extremely helpful. The self-audit tool is good and we made changes based on the feedback. n Did you have any issues completing the food safety plan or the audit? It was a lot of time and paperwork to complete the plan. We didn t pass the first time. The auditor was very used to California farms and was marking us down for things that really didn t apply. We don t have migrant labor, all the bathrooms are indoors and close to the bog, our employees have been working here for years. They didn t recognize the regional, cultural, and geographic differences that impact our farming operations. n What do you think are the next big issues around food safety for commercial growers? Definitely traceability. To do it right, by the clamshell, is very expensive. Right now we do it by the box, which is what s required but that s not how the product is sold at retail. Soon it will be required by the package and very few growers even understand what that means for their operations or how to go about it. n So how can the State help growers get ready for the new traceability standards? Get some experts in the field that really understand what goes on in retail markets. Have recommendations for equipment, materials, and methods to get it done. Offer classes to train growers about this aspect of food safety through Extension offices or technical colleges. Growers need access to some one-on-one resources because there s a lot to learn. BUYER FINDINGS This group totaled 61 respondents. Of these, 49 respondents are school food services, thanks to outreach by Farm to School Specialist Doug Wubben. Seven report annual purchases over $1 million. 85% of respondents are buying up to 25% of their produce needs from Wisconsin sources. Most purchases were made via three channels: direct from growers (44%), distributors (63%), and food service (36%). Respondents rated on-farm food safety certification or practices as only second in overall importance to product quality when determining who/where they purchase produce from. More specifically, the critical factors cited within food safety were utilizing (the buyers ) company food safety standards and proper post-harvest handling to minimize food safety risks. Still, only 20% of buyers surveyed have some type of on-farm food safety requirement in place. Seven require written on-farm food safety plans and 6-) require GAP certification. Nine are currently engaged with other buyers to streamline processes and requirements and another 20 expressed interest in doing so. Nine are utilizing a list of food safety certified growers and 21 expressed interest in obtaining one. Nearly two-thirds of respondents have no requirement in place for trace-back of produce to the farm. About 70% responded that on-farm food safety would improve if farmers better understood buyer requirements. When given various options to help growers improve on-farm food safety, about half the respondents said they would not participate in any way. Based on comments from buyers, there is an expectation that someone else in the supply chain is taking responsibility for on-farm food safety. ANALYSIS BUYERS Z The lack of food safety protocols at the buyer level provides an opportunity for growers to be involved in setting requirements. Z The lack of trace-back requirements is a food safety risk area but one that may be easily addressed given high levels of labeling at the farm level. Z The expectation that on-farm food safety is the supplier s responsibility indicates that buyers do not fully understand the risks along the supply chain. Z A better understanding of buyer requirements by growers may have a positive impact on sales of Wisconsin produce. 10 FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE

11 PHONE INTERVIEWS BUYERS n How can smaller growers access institutional markets? It doesn t matter if they are large or small, we don t buy direct from growers. They need to have GAP certification or equivalent by a third-party and a HACCP plan, and they also need to work with an aggregator that is food safety certified. n Do you have any other requirements? No, but we plan to start making spot checks of fields next year. n What can the State do to help growers? Work with Wisconsin aggregators to understand our requirements and then to train growers. We don t have the time or staff to train our suppliers. They need to be ready to do business. n Are you concerned about on-farm food safety? Not really. We are very large. We know the growers personally and visit the farms during the season. We purchase maybe 20% of our needs from local growers. For other products, we buy from a distributor and they make sure the food is safe. n What s the level of food safety knowledge among growers? The large co-ops have food safety planning and implementation down. The Amish growers do it very well. We have field managers that manage certifications, harvest, and cooler temperatures to insure requirements are met. n So what are your food safety requirements? It s a little different since we wash and cook vegetables before processing. What we are very concerned about is pesticide use, but that s taken care of with organic certifications at the farm. Growers have to have insurance and we need to know the history of what s been grown in a particular field. We take field samples prior to harvest, mostly to test for pesticide residue. n Do Wisconsin growers need to do something differently to sell you more produce? Not really, we have a crop plan that diversifies our purchases geographically. When we ve wanted to buy more from Wisconsin, it s been amazing how quickly some of these organic growers can get organized. I wish we had a larger market so we could buy more. n How do you manage food safety? We buy through a broad-line distributor and just about everything we buy has been processed; cut, bagged, and sealed. We think that really reduces our risk and is a key to food safety. n Are there any facets of your supplier s food safety actions that you think could be improved? We don t know the origin of what we buy. Putting in a system of trace-back would be helpful. n You don t buy very much from Wisconsin, does food safety play any role in that decision? Well we could be buying more than we think if it s processed. The biggest reason is seasonality; our kitchens operate at a low level when Wisconsin produce is available. We did buy local sweet corn for an event last year. We would look at products like melons, potatoes or onions if the price was right. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE 11

12

13 What can the State of Wisconsin do to best help you meet your on-farm food safety goals? ANSWERS Food Safety workshops or even tech school classes similar to ISO 9000 classes. I am not sure how much an audit costs so I cannot tell you what a cost share would do. I think that having free audits would be in the best interest of the state. Expand the wild animal fence program, loans or grants for improving food safety systems. State certified audits at low cost. A cost-share program to subsidize an audit. Please refrain from putting more regulations on the small farmer. Small Farmers have been growing food since the beginning of farming as we know it. There are millions more deaths from industrial agriculture than there are deaths from food from small farms who keep to themselves. Perhaps you need to be paying more attention to the way we do things out here, and we need to be paying less attention to the way you do things up there. Thank you for hearing my voice. Subsidized workshops are practical. I have heard horror stories about auditors being demeaning, rude, and thoroughly unhelpful on a few farms who were getting an initial inspection done. This, in part, has made me wary of having a thirdparty inspection done. I understand that third-party inspectors are not paid to work in partnership with the farms they are inspecting, but there either needs to be a helpful attitude by inspectors or farms need to be thoroughly prepared. Most farmers I know would greatly appreciate step-by-step training on how to develop a safety manual and so on. That s something the state could do, preferably at low cost. Even if we chose to forgo third-party certification, our farms would be better off for having gone through the training. State help at this time would be a cost-share program. We know the guidelines and have been through this before. I am not sure how relevant it would be for us. We have not heard any concern from CSA members or Farmers Market. We don t plan on working with many stores and the stores we are talking to haven t asked us about this yet. If we were to do it we would need to have financial help because I am not so sure we could make sales to make up for the added expense. There are too many agencies that take from the farmer and put it in their pockets to pay for office book work. It isn t fair to the farmers who work so hard and then what little they get is divvied up between taxes, insurance, and audits. Cost share would be great. Workshops are very helpful especially when learning about requirements; recordkeeping toolkit would be great. Training workshops, one on one consultation, cost sharing for implementing practices. Clear direction on who handles third-party GAP certification. Funding without complicated and timeconsuming applications. Vegetable specific food safety training for small scale. Technical assistance. Cost-share program. Written training guide/materials. Attention to and consideration of small-scale producers with few and very low-tech facilities. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE 13

14

15 What can the State of Wisconsin do to best help you meet your on-farm food safety goals? ANSWERS Reduce the amount of regulations that small farmers have to comply with. WPS, fertility management plans, food safety audits when will it end? General Food Safety training workshops Funding for packing and washing facilities, esp. lowinterest fixed-rate loans. Farms have a hard time getting home equity loans and regular small business loans for the most part. Farm Credit Services might be of assistance, but assisting farmers through the loan process would be good, so maybe a financial workshop on funding available to farmers would be good. Promotion of the small diversified fruit and vegetable grower should be a priority. We understand the importance of having a tracking system for those producers who sell to chain (big box) stores, but for most of us, this is not a realistic regulation. Through face-to-face customer sales, food safety issues are easily self-regulated by the producer. I have attended food safety workshops at conferences. The professor teaching was living in dreamland. Practices that would be cost-prohibitive. This needs to be practical. I am just turned off by the way that some that are not in the business, but are teaching, think that there is an endless pot of gold sitting here. It just needs to be something that is doable at a price that is realistic. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE Provide schooling and guidance. I could say pretty much anything on food safety BUT the customer knows what they see and most of them know trust their local produce. Maybe you should just make foreign nationalities a sign that says they do not follow healthy practices. Cheaper that way! Thanks for your interest and concern for our small operation. A food safety training workshop. Workshops and guidelines. Realize that producers already have a number of government fees and taxes to pay. Any additional fees will be met negatively and cause producers to lose interest in participating in the program. Make sure that any regulations put in place do not favor large operations over small operations!!!! Make room for small operations to be viable businesses. A cost-share program to subsidize audit and costs for food safety upgrades/equipment needs. Having environmental impact assessments/food safety plans made public, for example air quality assessments of CAFO sitings. Stronger enforcement of agriculture pollutants entering our water and soil systems. Invest in small farmer cooperative processing facilities and business development planning for value-added agriculture especially for women farmers. Provide easily accessible information to help me learn about the issue and assess my needs. 15

16

17 What can the State of Wisconsin do to best help you meet your on-farm food safety goals? ANSWERS Not much; best thing the state can do is to fight to keep some of the off-the-wall rules out. Help in coordination and development of some of the record systems to be used that will be universally accepted and easy to use by a diverse base of growers, shippers, processors, and suppliers. Help with documenting GAP at the farm level. Practical tools and methods for keeping records, training employees, and staying organized. Provide information in understandable format timely and current facts through online sources. Have trained and knowledgeable people doing the training. Technical assistance in writing manuals, answering questions that come up about reasonable, doable cleaning schedules, testing, etc. Cost-share program would be nice. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE 17

18

19 You responded that you either do not have a process/requirements in place to address on-farm food safety or you are in the process of creating one. Please tell us more about where you are at and why. ANSWERS I guess I never felt the need to; I buy by produce from distributors and feel I can trust their buyers and procedures. We only buy from stores or wholesalers. Not even started. We have not considered on-farm safety processes until hearing about them now. Produce is not regulated in Wisconsin until it is processed. We take the word of Badgerland produce that their process is safe. I am waiting for our local/state food inspector for requirements. Looking to create a policy. Doing research regarding those that already have one in place. Are they working or what would they change? Not something I considered critical. I made the assumption that they were in place. Only purchase from reputable vendors. Typically our distributors are responsible for this part of the process. As we move from field to table this will grow more important. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE 19

20 STATUS OF FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION STATUS OF FEDERAL FOOD SAFETY LEGISLATION AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS AFFECTING WISCONSIN FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCERS Margaret Krome, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (MFAI), for Family Farmed and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) January 11, 2010 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT The original contract for this project called for MFAI to research and report on current and potential changes to federal food safety regulations in regards to the fresh fruit and vegetable industry and how such changes might impact Wisconsin specialty fresh fruit and vegetable growers. The information is intended to be nonadvocacy based and to pertain to growers of all sizes and kinds in the state. I received clarification January 6 from Teresa Cuperus with DATCP that DATCP really intends that this report address potential legislative, rather than regulatory, changes. This is germane because it is possible to report on certain potential changes in federal legislation, as below, although much is not yet resolved. However, the regulatory framework is varied, and clarity on regulations will be a much longer proposition. Any rulemaking process takes few to several months, and because of the complexity and contentiousness of the food safety area and the regulatory proposals already being discussed in the form of draft food safety guidance documents, these particular regulations are likely to take much of This regulatory timeline may have implications for the timeline of this project. Some of the regulatory specifics are noted below under the Regulatory Framework section. LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND TIMELINE Food safety is a priority of the Obama Administration. In March 2009, President Obama established a Food Safety Working Group that met and, in mid-summer, laid out three broad strategies for improving food safety: prioritizing prevention, strengthening surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and recovery. The Working Group recommended creating legislation that gave the Administration authority to enhance the ability to require sanitation and preventive controls at food facilities, based on a scientific hazard analysis; access basic food safety records at facilities; enhance ability to use resources flexibly to target food at the highest risk and achieve the maximum gain for public health; enhance ability to establish performance standards to measure the implementation of proper food safety procedures; and require mandatory recalls. Both the House of Representatives bill H.R. 2749, The Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, and the Senate bill S.510, The Food Safety Modernization Act, incorporate many of these recommendations. Both bills focus on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is part of the US Dept of Health and Human Services. FDA oversees the safety of all foods except for meat, poultry, and processed egg products, which are overseen by USDA. Thus legislation changing FDA regulatory authority and process pertains to specialty crops in Wisconsin. The House passed H.R in late July, 2009, and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee reported S.510 to the full Senate in mid- November. S.510 was placed on the Senate floor docket mid-december and could hit the Senate floor at any time. The two bills are likely to be negotiated in House- Senate conference in the first half of LEGISLATIVE ISSUES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BILLS Although there are important differences between the House and Senate bills, they both address similar issues. Broadly speaking, both bills address: who must and who need not register as a facility for food safety regulatory purposes laid out in the 2002 Bioterrorism Act; what requirements and actions are invoked by the facility designation, such as HACCP plans, food defense plans, user fees, regular FDA inspection, enforcement, and traceability; that the FDA should create food safety regulations pertaining to production of fruits and vegetables, starting with those of greatest risk or concern; and that the FDA should update its 1998 draft guidances regarding FDA s voluntary Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) for fruits and vegetables within a year of enactment. Facility Definition bills largely codify current FDA regulations defining what is a facility under the Bioterrorism Act of Those regulations currently require nothing more than that facilities report their existence to the federal government. Historically, FDA hasn t actively enforced all aspects of this definition, but because of threats in recent years and increased enforcement intention, the definitions as they stand and as reinforced in legislation will have greater significance. Unlike the current situation, under the new bill, being 20 FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE

21 defined as a facility brings with it far more than simple registration requirements. A facility includes a factory, warehouse, or establishment that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food. The term facility does not include farms, private residences of individuals, restaurants, other retail food establishments, or nonprofit food establishments in which food is prepared for or served directly to consumers. A farm is defined as an operation in one general physical location devoted to the growing and harvesting of crops, the raising of animals, or both. Under what circumstances is a farm a facility? It is a facility if it commingles products from several farms or engages in a long list of activities that include synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying, or manipulating crops, including cutting, peeling, trimming (except for outer leaves, which is okay), washing (basic washing of produce is okay), waxing, eviscerating, rendering, cooking, baking, freezing, cooling (cooling produce is okay), pasteurizing, homogenizing, mixing, formulating, bottling, milling, grinding, extracting, distilling, labeling, or packaging. Both the House (explicitly by codifying the regulation) and Senate (by doing nothing to change the current regulation) language exempt farms (including those that commingle, etc., in the above paragraph) from facility status if 50.01% or more of their gross sales are directly to consumers. This exemption applies to all of their sales, including the portion that goes into wholesale markets. Thus, Wisconsin Specialty crop growers who perform value-added functions on their farm, including functions that normally would define them as a facility, are exempt from facility status if they direct market 50.01% of their gross sales. If they do not meet this threshold, they are defined as a facility and must register as such. FINAL REPORT FOR PHASE ONE Implications of Facility Registration The House bill would require a $500 registration fee per facility for all facilities, regardless of size or type. The Senate bill does not include this fee. Both bills assign new food safety responsibilities to facilities. These include the following: Creating and implementing a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan conducting a hazard analysis, identifying and validating preventive controls, taking corrective action as needed, and keeping records of such efforts Implementing a food safety plan before engaging in interstate commerce Allowing FDA inspections of a facility Maintaining records for traceback identifying sources of inputs and purchasers of food products sold by a facility. The Senate bill s traceability provisions would only apply to fresh produce; the House provisions include processed produce. Record keeping on potential for food adulteration for six months to three years FDA Draft Guidances Both bills require the FDA to update its 1998 Food Safety Guidance, creating science-based food safety standards for producing fresh fruits and vegetables. The form that these standards take, the relationships between state and federal regulators, and the transparency of the process for establishing them will significantly determine the nature and extent of the impact on Wisconsin specialty growers of this part of H.R.2749 and S In general, the FDA s guidances, based on voluntary Good Agricultural Practices, once codified, become mandatory regulations. (See Regulations below.) LEGISLATIVE AREAS OF UNCERTAIN INTERPRETATION Certain aspects of the legislation are unclear, even to Hill staffers, USDA and FDA staffers, and seasoned observers. One area of disagreement is the significance of language in the House bill that appears to draw distinctions between facility owners obligation to implement a food safety plan and obligations to implement a food defense plan. Opinions vary regarding whether real differences are intended and, if so, whether the FDA would implement them. Similarly, the House bill refers to food safety obligations associated with shipping of interstate food. There has been debate, but no clear conclusion whether some food safety obligations are restricted only to interstate and not intra-state sales. It is remarkable that areas with such potential implications for facilities obligations have not been made clear; but at this point that appears to be the case. 21