Page 17 - 0419

This was a problem on the buy side when we formed the LGMA back in 2006 and unfortunately still continues today. As long as retailers and big box stores continue to have different buying guide- lines for an over-supplied market and a short-supplied market, the leafy greens industry will continue to bear the brunt of the 1%.
— Eric Schwartz, chief executive, Eckert Foods, Salinas, CA
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its investigation on Feb. 13, 2019. Prior to completing its investiga- tion, the FDA said this:
On Dec. 13, 2018, Adam Bros. Farming, Inc., in Santa Barbara County, recalled products that may have come into contact with water from the water reservoir where the outbreak strain was found. The firm recalled red leaf lettuce, green leaf
lettuce and cauliflower harvested on November 27 through 30, 2018. According to the firm, the lettuce and cauliflower was distributed to wholesalers in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
The Adam Bros. recall has prompted a recall by Spokane Produce Inc. of Spokane, WA. The firm recalled sandwiches and other products under the Northwest Cuisine Creations and Fresh&Local labels.
Now we don’t actually know that any Adams
Bros. Farming product was contaminated, but — and maybe this is the most important thing for the industry to know — the company is not a member of the California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement.
Yet we know that Spokane Produce wound up with the Adams Bros. product. In fact, Adams Bros. has said that recalled product was widely distributed:
Cauliflower was distributed to wholesalers in AZ, CA, IL, LA, MD, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, Tijuana, Mexico and Canada; red and green leaf lettuce was distributed to wholesalers in CA, CO, OR, TX, PA, WA and Canada; red leaf lettuce only was distributed to a wholesaler in MN and Tijuana, Mexico.
Of course, if all these wholesalers had the product, it had to be sold to retailers and restaurants just as widely dispersed. Indeed, one of the oddities of the Adams Bros. recall is why there weren’t dozens of follow-up recalls by the wholesalers who received the product.
The LGMA was always a second choice. In 2007, in a piece titled, “Cutting Through The Agendas: What’s a Buyer to Do,” we wrote: Even in California, the initial plan of Western Growers Associa- tion was to move from a Marketing Agreement — which always poses the danger that companies won’t join or will withdraw from participation — to a Marketing Order that would be mandatory for all. Marketing Orders customarily call for the growers to vote to establish and maintain the Marketing Order. Typically, there is some type of “supermajority” provision, whereas a majority of the growers representing a majority of the crop must endorse a plan. WGA killed that plan because it was certain the plan would be voted down. In other words, even among spinach and leafy greens growers, even in California, there is no consensus for a mandatory food safety solution that we can take to government. It is obvious that even the 1% of non-compliance is a risk too
large for the industry to take.
FROM PERISHABLEPUNDIT.COM
Improving the metrics is an excellent idea. But it is time for industry leadership to get back to the drawing board. How do we make sure that 100% of the crop entering commercial trade is grown in line with LGMA standards?
In the short term, there is a sense that the urgency for buyers to make sure they were only buying product in line with the LGMA standards has slipped. Perhaps LGMA and its sister Arizona organization — the Arizona Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, can maintain a list on their websites, just as they do of producer members, of buying organizations that have signed binding agreements to only purchase LGMA-compliant product.
Schwartz makes the mention of variable standards being adopted by buyers in tight markets. There is just no place for variable food safety standards by commercial buyers. Although the FDA does not disclose the buyers of product unless a recall is involved, the list on this recall seems heavy to wholesalers. LGMA and the Arizona LGMA would be wise to set up an educa- tional outreach to wholesalers — reminding them of the importance of conforming to these standards and educating them on ways to make sure their suppliers
are in conformance.
We will even pitch in. There are loads of wholesalers
from around the United States and Canada who attend The New York Produce Show and Conference, presented by the Eastern Produce Council and Pundit sister publication, Produce Business. We will donate a booth and staff hotel rooms to support the LGMA and Arizona LGMA in this wholesale outreach.
In an example of the law of unintended consequences, one reason getting compliance is so hard is because advocacy groups for food safety and the courts have changed the standard over the years so that people and companies do not have to be found negligent to be held responsible. The mere introduction of an adulterant into commerce is a crime.
Under a negligence-based system, producers would be able to say, “I followed the Leafy Greens metrics,” and that would exonerate them. Buyers would be able to say, “I only bought from adherents of the Leafy Greens metrics” and that would exonerate them. Under current law, following even the most rigorous food safety standards doesn’t matter. If you introduce a pathogen into commerce, and it causes injury, you are liable. Generally speaking, retailers are only contingently liable. They pay up only if the producer can’t pay the bill. This is why the retail focus on food safety issues often revolves around the adequacy of liability insurance.
In the UK, however, there is a different legal standard, and UK retailers have to demonstrate they were not negligent themselves. We wrote a piece for The New Atlantis almost 10 years ago laying out this problem. The piece was titled, “How to Improve Food Safety: Aggrandizing the FDA Only Distracts from Real Solutions,” and we focused on the necessity of making retailers responsible for failing to enforce rigorous food safety standards.
It will be very difficult to change such legal standards, so, perhaps industry efforts need to refocus on a Marketing Order as a tool that could actually cover the whole industry.
How much more should the fully compliant industry suffer because of a few bad actors? And how many more people will die?
It is time for industry leadership to get back to the drawing board.
Fixing this is both a financial and a moral imperative.
PRODUCE BUSINESS / APRIL 2019 / 17