Search benefits of washing rice

Opinion

Editor’s note: Each Spring, attorneys Bill Marler and Denis Stearns teach a Food Safety Litigation course in the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. This specialized program for attorneys brings together those who are interested in our food system, from farm to table. As a final assignment, students are asked to write an op-ed or essay on food safety, with the best to be selected for publication in Food Safety News. The following is one of the essays for 2020.

By Alexia Kulwiec

As to that delicious steak or pork chop you are about to sink your teeth into, do you know where it came from? Will the grocery refrigerated cooler where you purchased that meat be empty tomorrow? 

In the quest to produce beef and pork free of pathogens that could cause food borne illness, the United States has created a system that leaves the nation’s food supply vulnerable to a health crisis such as the country is now experiencing. At the same time, the U.S. system has decreased the ability of smaller local producers, often involved in humanely raising healthy animals, to provide healthy foods to the consumer. While strong health and safety measures are needed in the local food movement as elsewhere, smaller operations could be a large part of, if not the, solution to the current vulnerability in the U.S. food supply.

The world, but specifically North America, is beginning to experience the drastic impact of the ongoing consolidation of the meat processing industry, with concerns growing over the stability of the food supply. U.S. and local regulations must change to decrease this impact and can do so by supporting local independent growers. In the United States, USDA inspected meat processing plants have temporarily closed in South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin. In Canada, a Covid-19 outbreak at a single Cargill plant in Alberta impacted close to one-half of Canada’s beef supply. Closed plants cannot process the beef and pork demanded by consumers. In turn, farmers and ranchers lack a market for their products.  As an alternative and supplemental supply of meat products, consumers can obtain food locally sourced from producers they know and trust. 

Until recently, the position of the USDA, and perhaps of consumers generally, was that to ensure a safe meat supply, meat must be slaughtered in USDA inspected plants. The federal Wholesome Meat Act requires processing of all beef and pork to be slaughtered and processed in USDA inspected facilities or state facilities that follow standards at least as stringent as federal rules.  

In the abstract, this regulation has some merit – consumers rightfully demand beef and pork products free from pathogens, illness or other contaminants that could cause injury or illness. To date, while safety of meat produced has improved, the meat processing system itself, broadly speaking, is failing to meet the needs of American consumers. The past month in the United States has demonstrated that consolidation has led to a serious vulnerability in U.S. meat production as well as compromised safety and health of the meat processing workforce. 

Also the food system as presently constituted, in part because of USDA regulations, fails to support local independent operations that help address the instability of the market. 

Not healthy for the stability of the U.S. food supply
There has been tremendous consolidation in meat processing industries over the last several decades. The top 4 beef processors control approximately 80% of the U.S. meat supply. The top 4 pork processors account for approximately 63% of the U.S. market. The consolidation into just a few top processors has led to fewer and larger meat slaughter and processing facilities. As we have seen the past few weeks, the closure of one or more of these plants can have a serious impact on the nation’s supply of beef and pork. By one estimate, 10% of all beef production and 25 % of the U.S. pork production has closed after 13 packing and food processing workers died after contracting Covid-19. Because of the consolidation in the meat industry, one plant closing can have an enormous impact on the U.S. supply of fresh beef and pork.  

Not healthy for workers
Workers in the meat and poultry industry on average earn less than $15 an hour and earn 44% less than workers in other manufacturing jobs. Yet this is dangerous work and has been prior to Covid-19. Eight plant workers died between 2013 – 17 from work related injuries, and a good number more lost body parts or were hospitalized for work injuries. Many suffer unreported injury and illness, particularly disabling musculoskeletal illness caused by high lines speeds and difficult repetitive work. Workers report long hours without breaks, lack of adequate access to sanitation facilities, and tremendous pressure to meet high productions quotas.

The regulatory system has supported growth of large-scale slaughterhouses and meat processing plants, where social distancing is impossible, line speeds have put workers’ safety at tremendous risk and conditions have already caused unnecessary injuries. Employees work shoulder to shoulder, processing up to 400 cattle per hour. During the Covid-19 crisis, workers have reported being encouraged to work even if they appeared sick. Many did not receive any PPE, Personal Protective Equipment, and at least 13 workers have died from exposure to the virus. As well as the toll on workers, this has led to the closure of a number of plants. This negatively impacts the nation’s supply of beef and pork.

Not healthy for local and smaller producers and their markets
The consolidation of the U.S. meat processing industry has been particularly difficult on smaller, local operations. Local processing plants that satisfy the USDA or state requirements are in short supply. Massive consolidation in the meat processing industry has led to the processing of most beef and pork in fewer but large processing facilities. As a practical matter, such facilities serve the industry. The often will not accept small quantities for processing, thus making it nearly impossible for smaller meat producers to ensure inspection of products for sale to consumers. At best, small producers are often told that plants cannot process their meat for six months. At worst, they are turned away. In addition, small producers have to transport their animals long distances for processing at these plants, often hundreds of miles. This transportation has an obvious environmental impact and causes unnecessary stress to the animals transported for slaughter. These delay and distance hurdles also create financial disincentives for small producers to raise animals for sale locally.

Meanwhile, reports suggest that consumer demand for local sustainably grown foods is increasing. Consumers want to know how their food is grown and processed, are interested in a shorter supply chain, and wish to support local producers. 

These producers can certainly be part of any solution, yet they lack feasible access to approved processing facilities. In addition, while custom slaughter operations can process meat for an animal owner, these facilities are prohibited from processing meat for sale. This in turn continues to drive the consolidation of the industry that has made the nation’s food supply vulnerable during a crisis. Expanding the ability of these independent facilities, with appropriate safety regulations, to process meat for sale would help expand our nation’s safe meat supply.

Is the 400 an hour cattle processing really the best method to provide safe and healthy food?
So how do we keep this local food supply safe? Modifying regulations that allow for differences for smaller, local plants could increase the number of smaller plants. The current USDA meat processing  regulations are numerous, difficult, and unduly burdensome on a smaller operation. Accounting for the differences in the size of processing plants while maintaining safety standards could go a long way towards decreasing reliance on a number of large plants. This would lessen the vulnerability to our food supply of the closure of one large facility. Allowing for a more diverse production system but with continued stringent safety standards would limit our reliance on the four corporations that control 80% of the American beef market and the few controlling pork production.

Modifying OSHA regulations protecting workers, such as providing for slower lines speeds and perhaps a plant design that allows workers more space, can impact the safety and health of employees as well maintain a healthier workforce. This in turn makes plant closure less likely in the event of a virus or other illness. Such a system can, and should, continue to impose rules to ensure the health of the meat supply. Certainly this may impact price. However, more competition from a more diverse supply chain would also positively impact price, as will transportation savings to independent producers

To this end, one option is the proposed change in federal law called the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act (“the PRIME Act”), H.R. 2859. The Prime Act would repeal the ban on sale of meat processed by “custom slaughterhouses” that meet state regulations and basic federal requirements, but not those needed in larger facilities that are not as relevant in smaller operations. Currently, animal owners can have their own meat processed in these facilities but cannot sell products processed at custom facilities.

Opponents argue against permitting farmers and ranchers to sell to consumers without the benefit of USDA inspection citing health and safety concerns. Yet under the PRIME Act, states are free to develop regulations of the industry to ensure safety while increasing access to wholesome food.

Opponents have also argued that there is a lack of accountability by the smaller producers under this system. Yet, smaller local producers are much more financially impacted by any problem in their food production. One illness is likely to drive them out of business, which in turn drives them to often utilize far greater protections in raising, slaughtering and processing their animals. 

In the alternative to new federal legislation permitting local processing and sales directly to the consumer, the USDA and the states must increase the number of inspectors and provide for an increased number of smaller facilities. A greater number of smaller facilities would ensure that the impact of just one plant closing would not have a great impact on the U.S. food supply. It would also allow for greater physical space between employees, protecting them from contact during a health crisis such as Covid-19. It serves local producers, and the environment, in that they will spend less on transportation and be more likely to be able to profit from selling their meat locally. It helps meet consumer demand for locally grown organic food that meets animal welfare standards. Without more facilities, a local farmer or rancher who raises cattle in pasture without unnecessary antibiotics and houses the animal in clean facilities is often forced to then stress the animal by transporting them hundreds of miles for slaughter and processing, thus defeating many of the benefits of animals raised humanely. 

The current USDA practices and procedures drives out small producers and processors at a critical time when our food supply demands more, not less, producers. This in turn has placed the U.S. market for meat, and consumers, in a vulnerable position. It has placed almost all of our beef and pork production in the hands of just a few giant corporations.  As the Covid -19 virus has made us painfully aware, the corporations placed profit before the safety of our overall meat supply, not to mention their workers whose very lives have been put at risk. In light of the inadequate number of processing facilities and inspectors, regulations need to be modified to protect the industry, health and safety of workers, and the nation’s food supply.  

1. See  Dianne Gallagher, Meat Processing Plants Acorrs the US are Closing Due to the Pandemic. Will Consumers Fell the Impact?, CNN Business (April 27, 2020).  See also  Danielle Kaeding, JBS USA Announces Temporary Closure of Green Bay Meatpacking Plant, Wisconsin Public Radio (April 26, 2020). See also National Farmers Union, April 22, 2020 Media Release: Covid-19 Shuts Down Half of Canada’s Beef Supply, https://www.nfu.ca/. While not the subject of the post, the issue is beginning to surface in poultry as well: workers in Georgia and Alabama have contracted the covid-19 virus, with some plant mangers sending employees home. A Vancouver chicken plant closed after 28 workers tested positive for Covid -19.

2. 21 C.F.R. § 601 et. al.

3. Amelia Lucas, Meatpacking Union says 25% of US Pork Production hit by Coronavirus Closures, CNBC (April 23, 2020). 

4.Taylor Telford and Kimberly Kindy, As they Rushed to Maintain U.S. Meat Supply, Big Processors saw Plants become Covid-19 Hot Spots, Worker Illnesses Spike, Washington Post, April 25, 2020.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Even though agriculture is the basis of civilization as we know it now, it is for the most part separate from most of us. We all eat, but how the food actually gets to the stores and restaurants is not something we think about. It’s there; we buy it; we eat it; and that’s as far as it goes for most of us.

Yet for millions of farmworkers, agriculture is their bread and butter — an integral part of their lives. Who they actually are, we don’t know. They’re essential but invisible.

And when the government announces billions of dollars in aid  to help farmers during the coronavirus pandemic, it’s rare to see the farmworkers mentioned. It’s almost as though they don’t exist.

But in an unexpected twist, the coronavirus pandemic is putting things into a new light. People are beginning to realize that farmworkers are indeed essential workers. Without them, how would food get harvested and into the stores and restaurants? How would it get to us?

Speed is king
In  just about all cases, speed is king in agriculture. The faster a worker can pick a crop or process the food, the more he or she will earn — and the more the farmer or processor will make. Slow pokes need not apply.

But when it comes to food safety, and now coronavirus, this emphasis on speed can put farmworkers and their supervisors at odds.

A farmworker recently told Food Safety News in an earlier interview, before the coronavirus pandemic, about what would happen if he alerted a manager to a possible food safety problem such as deer droppings in a field, a food-safety alert of the first degree. Such droppings can contain the potentially deadly E. coli pathogen and contaminate, for example, fresh berries or leafy greens.

“If I see something wrong and speak up, the first thing they would do is fire me,” the farmworker said. While this does not reflect what happens on all farms, workers say it is true in many cases.

Why would he be fired? Because it would slow things down while the problem was being addressed. Sometimes it might be as simple as quickly putting up a barrier around the area where the droppings are seen. But it can also involve scouting an entire field to see if the deer have left droppings anywhere else before the workers can go back to harvesting.

Delays like that can be costly to the farmer. It’s not how agriculture works. Instead, it’s about getting the crop picked as fast as possible so it can be loaded onto trucks and taken to the warehouses, processing centers, or stores.

All hands on deck
With the need to have all hands on deck — along with the need on the part of the farmworker to come to work to earn some money — sick employees are often out there working in the fields and packing sheds. That’s because they rarely get paid for sick days and therefore show up day after day no matter how sick they are.

But in the case of coronavirus, notifying a supervisor that a fellow worker appears to be sick would slow things down, especially now that concerns about coronavirus are running rampant.

Running rampant for good reason when it comes to agriculture.  Earlier this month, some large meat and poultry plants closed down temporarily when outbreaks of coronavirus among their workers were reported. In one case, at the JBS beef plant in Greeley, CO, more than 100 workers tested positive for the virus and four have died. At the Tyson Foods’ pork plant in Iowa, 186 cases of coronavirus were reported.

For consumers, these closings raise the specter of meat shortages and/or higher meat prices.

And even though coronavirus has not been shown to be transmitted via food or food packaging, there are safety issues if it leads to closures of farms and meat-packing plants, it raises concerns about the nation’s food supply.

Spotlight swings onto cooperation
Finding solutions to preventing food-safety and now coronavirus problems in agriculture are critical. That’s why one organization, the Equitable Food Initiative, has broadened its approach from food safety to include coronavirus.

The organization, which began certifying produce farms in 2014, originally put the spotlight on bringing growers, farmworkers, managers, supervisors, farmworker organizations, and retailers together to improve food safety practices in the produce industry. As such, it provides training and EFI certification, which, in turn, promotes the interests of  all of the players, as well as consumers. Some refer to it as a “win, win, win” solution.

With EFI certification, farms can use the green “Responsibly Grown, Farmworker Assured” label on their packages. Among the farms receiving EFI certification are Andrew & Williamson’s Crisalida Berry Farm in Ventura County, CA., Houweling’s Tomatoes, Windset Farms, Keystone Fruit Marketing, Borton Fruit, Naturesweet Tomatoes, and Alpine Fresh.

Retail collaborators include Costco Wholesale and Whole Foods Market.

At the heart of this approach is the belief that collaboration among all of the partners — from field to market — will result in increased assurances that produce is harvested as safely as possible in conditions that respect the safety and dignity of the workers. For farmworkers, this translates into respect for them and what they know. They know a lot because they’re right there on the front lines in the battle against foodborne pathogens that can get people sick or even kill them. “Building a safer and more equitable food system,” is how EFI puts it.

As for strategy, EFI goes onto the farms and helps create a core leadership team made up of workers from every level of employment on the farm, who often, under typical situations, are “at odds” with each other.

In contrast, said Peter O’Driscoll, founder of the Equitable Food Initiative, the EFI-developed teams are about problem solving and conflict resolution.

“We want to shift the culture of the farm,” he said. “We want to see the industry reward prevention — not sacrifice it to speed.”

Enter coronavirus
Even though the original focus of the Equitable Food Initiative was on farmworker labor conditions and supplying consumers with safe food, no one back then could have foreseen how important these leadership teams would prove to be when dealing with coronavirus.

“We did not envision that a pandemic would highlight the need for this programming,” said EFI spokesperson LeAnne Ruzzamenti. “But we have always understood that a healthy and well-respected labor force is critical to a safer and continuous food supply.”

Now in dealing with the challenges that come with coronavirus, she said that team problem solving is expanding thanks to the EFI communication networks that are already in place. It’s a network that includes valuable input from the farmworkers themselves because being so close to the situation gives them a perspective others might not have.

A farmer’s voice
“I have often remarked how thankful I am for the EFI workforce development model and the importance of worker-manager teams, but that has never been more evident than during this crisis,” said Vic Smith, chief executive officer of JV Smith Companies. The farm has 2,500 employees, with locations in Arizona and California.

“The ability for these already-established teams to be communicating and solving problems immediately as this issue gained traction has been critical in our ability to not only protect our workers, but continue to serve our customers.”

A farmworker’s voice
Miguel Campos, who works at Houweling’s, based in Camarillo, CA, which grows tomatoes and cucumbers in greenhouses, told Food Safety News that business is still going strong — at 100 percent.

All of the employees, including the farmworkers, have been educated in small, group training sessions about coronavirus. They’re wearing masks and gloves when necessary, keeping the right social distance, staying home when sick, and washing their hands while at work and before going home.

“I actually feel safer at work,” he said. “It feels good to come to work. And you have a safe feeling when you go home because you know you’ve done all you can do.”

Unlike fearing any repercussions if they report a possible problem, Campos said the farmworkers at Houwelings are encouraged to do just that.

In previous jobs, this wasn’t the case.

“The focus was on being reactive instead of on prevention,” he said. “Here at Houwelings the approach is ‘It’s better if we can fix something now before it becomes a problem.’ ”

That’s where the management teams come in. And that’s where the farmworkers’ input is so valuable.

“We’re considered assets instead of liabilities,” he said. “We’re requested to voice our concerns.”

But even before coronavirus, EFI’s management teams provided important communication networks that included farmworkers. It is these already established networks that companies can expand to include coronavirus.

“I’m very happy that Houwelings invited EFI to come in,” Campos said. “It’s very lucky for us that we can keep working and continue to provide food for people.”

EFI’s Ruzzamenti shares that line of thinking when it comes to the benefits this has provided for consumers.

“It helps keep food on the shelves,” she said.

Referring to toilet-paper and paper-towel shortages that has consumers facing long rows of empty shelves, she said “We don’t want that to happen to our food supply.”

Looking outward to help other farms
The Equitable Food Initiative has worked with its certified growers to learn from their worker-manager teams and has put together educational materials about coronavirus that can be shared directly with fresh produce growers and farmworkers.

The resources can be found at equitablefood.org/coronavirus.

The organization is offering a variety of resources on its website, including educational materials to distribute to workers and suggested processes for communication, hygiene, distancing and guestworker housing.

“We hope that the best thinking of worker-manager collaborative teams can assist other growers in keeping their workers safe and their businesses moving forward,” said EFI’s Ruzzamenti.

Marylu Ramirez, human resources manager for Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce/GoodFarms in California, is enthusiastic about the plan.

“The steps we are taking to ensure the safety of our team are evolving nearly every day, and we were happy to share our ideas and systems so that others in the industry can benefit from the thinking of our Process Improvement Teams,” said Ramirez. “Collaborating across the industry and relying on one another’s best thinking is exactly what we all need to help overcome this outbreak.”

In putting these resources together, EFI has been able to gather the combined knowledge from worker-manager EFI leadership teams that have been trained in communication and problem-solving skills to comply with EFI standards. The goal is to make these resources available to help the rest of the industry respond effectively.

Resources available include education materials in English and Spanish; guidance and recommended practices culled from industry sources and public health organizations; and best thinking from farming operations with EFI worker-manager collaborative teams to create safety measures in response to the coronavirus.

EFI is encouraging other industry members to share their ideas and resources for this clearinghouse for the greater agricultural community by emailing covidresources@equitablefood.org.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Federal Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler is a former assistant U.S. attorney who spent much of her career as a top prosecutor for major federal crimes. Her latest assignment as Magistrate for the U.S. District Court for Northern California is to decide if the soil must be used to grow organic crops.

Beeler will be reviewing USDA’s decision to permit the “indoor agricultural evolution” known as hydroponics to use the “organic” marketing slogan. Food safety is a driving force behind the hydroponics evolution, where plants are grown in water with specific mineral nutrient solutions, not soil.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture was sued March 2 in a civil action brought by organic interests that use soil to grow their crops. They claim the USDA decision allowing hydroponics to be sold under the organic label puts dirt growers at a disadvantage.

Led by the Center for Food Safety, the plaintiffs include Swanton Berry Farms Inc., Full Belly Farm Inc., Durst Organic Growers Inc., Terra Firma Farms Inc., Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo Inc., Long Wind Farm Inc., OneCert Inc. and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

The crux of the groups’ argument is that the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which set up the National Organic Program, imposes standards that require organic growers to “foster soil health.”

“These mandatory specific soil-based production requirements create an equal marketplace for organic farmers and ensure that foods labeled and sold as organic are consistently produced to deliver the ecological benefits that consumers associate with the organic label,” says the complaint.

“. . . stakeholders in the organic marketplace have consistently held that as a soil-less crop production system hydroponic operations do not foster soil fertility, and cannot meet the requirement for organic certification under the National Organic Program.”

USDA’s last decision favoring hydroponic growers was date June 6, 2019. The pro-soil side says the decision “weakened the integrity of the organic label.”

Swanton Berry Farm, an organic with growing operations in Santa Cruz and San Mateo, CA, acknowledges in the complaint that it has difficulty competing against hydroponically-produced strawberries.

Swanton says its “market competitiveness is injured by the confusion caused by the hydroponically produced strawberries labeled and sold as organic at lower prices than those that soil-based organic strawberry farmers can afford to match.”

The complaint also says the plaintiff Full Berry Farm “has experienced increased price competition in our wholesale and retail channels with hydroponically produced, certified organic produce.” The 400-acre California grower produces tomatoes, berries, fresh lettuce, herbs, and other salad greens.

The organic growers say “that hydroponic operations have their place in the diverse marketplace,” but don’t meet the soil-building requirements of the organic program requirements. No specific hydroponic growers are named in the lawsuit. Only USDA and its officials are named as defendants.

The Center for Food Safety is a 501c3, U.S. non-profit advocacy organization, based in Washington, D.C. It maintains an office in San Francisco.

“Healthy soil is the foundation of organic farming,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of plaintiff Center for Food Safety, “Organic farmers and consumers believe that the Organic label means not just growing food in the soil, but improving the fertility of that soil. USDA’s loophole for corporate hydroponics to be sold under the Organic label guts the very essence of ‘Organic’.”

“The federal organic law unequivocally requires organic production to promote soil fertility,” said Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety and counsel for plaintiffs. “USDA’s decision to allow mega-hydroponic operations that do nothing with soil to be sold as ‘Organic’ violates the law.”

Allowing hydroponics to be certified organic is another attempt to weaken the integrity of the Organic label, and has resulted in market confusion and inconsistent organic certifications, according to the CFS complaint.

Background
Organic agriculture has always been partly based on principles of improving soil fertility and promoting ecological balance. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the expert body assigned by Congress to advise USDA on organic matters, has repeatedly called on USDA to prohibit organic certification of hydroponics, but USDA has ignored that recommendation.

As a result of USDA’s inaction, CFS filed a legal petition in January 2019 formally asking USDA to prohibit hydroponic operations from the Certified Organic label on the basis that they do not fulfill the national organic standard of contributing to soil health, but USDA denied the petition’s requests later that year. The lawsuit filed today states that USDA’s rationale for denying the 2019 petition is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to our federal organic law.

In 2016, CFS won a  lawsuit closing a loophole that was permitting some organic operations to use compost contaminated with pesticides.

Some people contend that indoor hydroponic growing greatly enhances food safety by eliminating the possibility of animal incusions such as birds and deer. Pro-hydropinocs growers also say their growing water is free of pathogens that are naturally occurring in soil.

CFS is currently leading a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of vital organic rules that set standards for organic livestock care, such as adequate space and outdoor access. The challenged loophole for hydroponic operations would eliminate any need for organic farming to involve working with nature.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Contributed

Sally, a salad-making robot, is programmed to create fresh, healthy and safe salads, based on each customer’s specific requests. Chowbotics, the company behind Sally, created a robot that would not only increase efficiency, but also safety, in restaurants. Sally is notable because of the proprietary technology developed to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. Her ingredients are kept sanitary, separate, and regularly replenished, reducing the risk for contamination. Her creators kept cleanliness in mind. Since bacteria can get stuck within the crevices of any equipment, this particular robot was designed to be easily maintained, cleaned and sanitized by human employees.  In fact, Sally recently received a food safety certification for passing the National Sanitation Foundation standard. 

There’s no denying that robotics in restaurants is a new trend. Restaurants nationwide are beginning to explore robots, artificial intelligence (AI), and other innovative technologies as a way to perform a variety of tasks more quickly, accurately, efficiently and safely. Robots are now able to measure ingredients, cook custom meals, prepare pizza dough, flip burgers, and even mix drinks.   

While it’s exciting to think of having a Jetsons-like experience whenever we dine out, robots like Sally are the exception – not the norm – in restaurants. Currently, robots are “testing the market,” in terms of reliability, feasibility and practicality in restaurant kitchens. But it’s likely that this trend will grow in the coming years.

Robots – and other tech tools – have potentially huge implications and benefits, including improving efficiencies,  boosting food safety protocols, and cutting costs. The last notwithstanding a huge initial cost of buying the robot, which could be $30,000 or more.

While industry insiders tout the benefits of robots replacing human workers, robots don’t need to be paid, they don’t call in sick, they can often perform faster, more consistently, and more accurately than their human counterparts, there will always be a need for human staff in any food business. 

Human employees are integral to customer service functions such as greeting guests and interacting with customers, as well as overseeing and managing food safety functions such as cleaning, sanitizing, monitoring, troubleshooting, inspecting, etc.

One of the biggest needs in the foodservice industry is to reduce, prevent and eliminate foodborne illnesses, and humans are working with tech tools to elevate food safety protocols and practices. For instance, there’s a crucial, ongoing need to clean and sanitize all equipment – robotic or otherwise. Clearly, cross-contamination is a huge concern, so a burger-flipping robot, for example, would need to be programmed to use different utensils when touching raw vs. cooked meat. Its human colleagues would need to monitor the robot to ensure that the equipment is working properly as well as being cleaned thoroughly and regularly.

People creating the robots must ensure that they’re easy to clean and sanitize, and employees utilizing them must confirm that they’re being cleaned at regular intervals. Humans must make sure that every nook and cranny is properly and regularly cleaned – from the equipment that touches the food to the tiny crevices in and on the machines, which could harbor potentially dangerous bacteria.

As robots grow in popularity – and become more affordable and accessible for food business owners – there will always be a need for trained human employees.

Case in point: Technology is available to automatically pour espresso shots and make specialty coffee drinks, yet the number of baristas working in coffee shops continues to rise. This seems counterintuitive, but proves the point that guests crave human interaction along with their daily dose of caffeine. And businesses need humans to monitor the equipment and oversee daily operations.

There are exciting applications around technology in the food industry, and we’re seeing just the very beginning of what these tech tools can do, in terms of reducing or eliminating foodborne illness, reducing other risks, and keeping guests safer. Future implications are exciting and limitless. Tech tools – robotics and artificial intelligence, data analytics, the Internet of Things, etc. – are already having tremendous, positive implications for food safety throughout every step of the supply chain – from the farmers that grow our food to the restaurants that prepare and serve it.

Restaurants, manufacturers, distributors and other food businesses have experienced serious foodborne illness outbreaks due to human errors – lack of handwashing, time-temperature abuse, cross-contamination and other factors. Now, we can utilize innovative tech solutions – along with humans to manage them – to stop, or at least lessen these serious food safety breaches.

Tech solutions provide automation – robots can be programmed to do the same things consistently every time, to avoid cross-contamination, cook foods to proper temperatures, and follow specific food safety protocols. But robots can’t operate in a vacuum. They need to work collaboratively with human employees who can observe, manage and troubleshoot, to maximize impact and minimize risks.

Recent food safety breaches have been numerous, widespread and serious. Technology is a huge part of the solution. While some tech solutions might be out of restaurants’ budget comfort zones – obviously not every business can afford an expensive robot for their kitchen – there are many user-friendly options at a variety of price points. In fact, tech solutions for restaurants are becoming more mainstream, accessible and affordable.  For instance, there are digital checklists that significantly improve restaurants’ internal safety inspections, innovative thermometers that are more effective and accurate in determining when foods are cooked to safe temperatures, as well as equipment sensors, which set off alarms and send notices to managers’ cell phones whenever there’s a break in protocol – such as the walk-in cooler rising above a set temperature.   

The key to food safety successes and the reduction of foodborne illnesses, recalls and other damaging incidents is to utilize tech tools in partnership with trained human employees. Restaurants that are investing in technology – and properly training their staff – are seeing amazing results, in terms of productivity, efficiency, and, most importantly, safety.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

MOUNT VERNON, WA — They’re out there on the front lines waging a battle against dangerous pathogens that can contaminate your food and make you sick or even kill you. Yet most people don’t even think about them when they buy their food.

Who are these food-safety soldiers? None other than the farmworkers, the people who harvest and pack the fruits and vegetables you buy. Most people don’t see them simply because they’re often working far from towns, cities or major thoroughfares. Instead, they’re out in the fields or in the packing sheds in farm country. No wonder they’re often described as “an invisible workforce.”

But with the passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011, agricultural employers realize that their farmworkers need to play an important role in preventing microscopic food pathogens, such as E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria, from contaminating crops.

Along with that, they’re also realizing that the workers need to be trained. Prevention is the name of the game simply because contaminated produce doesn’t look any different from good produce. It isn’t a matter of quickly spotting the problem and throwing the contaminated fruit or vegetables away.

This means, of course, that farmers not only need to provide food-safety training to workers but also provide what’s necessary for them to keep food safe from contamination.

With that in mind, Bri Ewing, a food-science educator, shared information about what’s required of growers during her presentation, “Worker Health, Hygiene and Training,” a module of the Produce Safety Alliance’s standard curriculum. Attending the all-day training course on Oct 16 at the Washington State University Research Center were about 30 growers from northwest Washington State.

The alliance is a collaboration between Cornell University, FDA, and USDA to prepare fresh produce growers to meet the regulatory requirements included in the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Produce Safety Rule.

Training sessions based on the alliance’s standard curriculum will be held all across the nation. Go here for locations, dates and times.

The all-day training course is one way to satisfy the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Produce Safety Rule requirement that at least one supervisor or responsible party for a farm must have successfully completed food safety training at least equivalent to that received under standardized curriculum recognized as adequate by the Food and Drug Administration.

After attending the training course, participants will be eligible to receive a certificate from the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) that verifies they have completed the training course.

The training course includes an overview of the Food Safety Modernization Act, along with modules on farmworkers, soil amendments, agricultural water, post-harvest handling, and sanitation.

Faith Critzer, one of the trainers and the Produce Safety Extension Specialist for Washington state,  said that the Produce Safety Rule was driven by widespread concern over continuing outbreaks of food poisoning caused by raw produce and the need to prevent them. Many of the outbreaks caused serious foodborne illnesses and hospitalizations, and in some cases, even deaths.

The rule establishes, for the first time, science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption.

For the most part, the rule covers produce that is eaten raw and therefore doesn’t go through a “kill step” such as cooking. It doesn’t cover produce that is rarely eaten raw.

Go here to see what produce is covered under the law and what produce isn’t covered.

Go here for information on compliance dates and timelines.

Why workers are key

Ewing explained that the workers are a food-safety concern because they can carry human pathogens such as E. coli and norovirus,. The pathogens can be spread to produce in various ways: through their feces from not washing their hands after using the bathroom, clothing, and footwear that has been contaminated with animal feces, tools and equipment, and illness and injury. They can also be spread through saliva and mucus, and in the case of injuries, through blood.

While human pathogens can be spread in many ways, the most common way is what is referred to as the fecal-oral route. An example of this would be if a farmworker didn’t wash his or her hands after using the toilet and then handled produce, which could contaminate it, thus putting the person eating the raw fruit or vegetable at risk.

Ewing advised growers to start out by identifying potential ways contamination can be caused by workers. From there they should decide on topics to include in a worker-training program. Next is to figure out how to monitor how the facilities, including bathrooms, are to be maintained on the farm. From there, figure out ways to correct any identified problems. And then come up with a plan to keep records on worker health and training.

In other words, have a plan that identifies possible problems and ways to correct them before they happen. And keep records about how to keep track of this.

Keeping records is important because the Produce Safety Rule requires a grower to establish and keep records of training that document required training of personnel, including the date of training, topics covered, and the persons(s) trained.

Farmworkers can be trained to play an important part in preventing foodborne pathogens from contaminating produce. For example, they can learn to identify problems, such as deer or bird droppings in a field, which can contaminate the crop with E. coli. They can also learn how to make sure they don’t cause any contamination. They can do that in a variety of ways, such as washing their hands after using the bathroom before returning to the field, keeping equipment clean, tending to cuts before continuing to harvest or pack food, making sure containers they put produce in are clean, and not coming to work when they’re sick.

But more than that, they can be trained to see possible problems before they happen. And that goes for everyone working at the farm, including the people in the office, said Ewing.

The more people you have looking out for problems, the better,” said Ewing. Owners, supervisors, and managers are especially important in this

“They need to set the example,” Ewing said, adding that when workers see the people in charge of taking basic prevention steps, they’ll be more likely to follow their example.

Farmers need to provide at least one fully serviced bathroom facility for every 20 workers within one-quarter of a mile. These must be well-stocked and serviced on a regular basis. There must also be hand-washing facilities available. Anti-bacterial hand cleaners aren’t a substitute for running water.

Single-use paper towels, which are then thrown away,  are required because anything used by more than one farmworker could spread contamination.

Workers need to take their breaks in an area that’s not in the field where crops are being harvested or about to be harvested.

Drinking water should be provided.

“When workers’ basic needs aren’t met, they’re not thinking about food safety,” said Ewing.

Food safety specialist Critzer agreed. “You have to take care of people as well as food safety,” she said.

What about sick workers?

Some farmworkers come to work even if they’re sick simply because they need to earn some money. But supervisors and other workers need to be watchful about this. If, for example, a worker is using the bathroom more than would be usual, that could be a sign that he’s having digestive problems such as diarrhea or vomiting. That’s a clear signal that he or she should be sent home since sick farmworkers can contaminate produce. They can also be contagious to other workers.

Excessive coughing and a runny nose can also be a sign that a worker shouldn’t be handling produce.

But as several farmers pointed out, this can be a sensitive topic. How do you go about bringing this up to a worker?

Ewing agreed but pointed out that having good communication with workers is very important. And just as important is that the workers feel comfortable bringing up topics such as this — and any other food-safety problems they might see — to the supervisor or owner.

As the Produce Safety Alliance’s curriculum says: Good communication is a two-way street, meaning everyone has a responsibility to share what they know and listen when others have information to share.”

What about paid sick leave?

In Washington state, employees — including farmworkers — who are covered by the state’s Minimum Wage Law are covered under the Washington Sick Leave Law, which went into effect Jan. 1, 2018.

The rate of pay for paid sick leave is the normal hourly rate. For piece rate workers, the hourly rate is determined by using the total earnings in the most recent workweek divided by the total hours worked in that workweek.

All employees (including seasonal) accrue 1 hour of paid sick leave for each 40- hours worked as an employee.
The employer must provide notification to employees of their entitlement to be paid sick leave, and this must be provided to an employee when he or she starts employment.

For more information, call wafla, a seasonal and ag employers HR association,  at (360) 455-8064.

California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont, and Arizona are among the other states with paid sick leave. Ag employers are advised to call their Departments of Labor and Industries to get details of those laws.

Workers need to know not just what to do or not to do, they also need to know why the main reason being that they don’t want people to get sick. Knowing that keeps them motivated to do the right thing. But it also goes beyond wanting to make sure people don’t get sick. It goes to what would happen if the farm they’re working on were to get shut down because of a food safety problem. This has happened to small and large farms alike. In other words, they need to know that their job depends on getting this right.

At the end of the presentation, Critzer pointed out that food safety and food quality go hand in hand together.

“At the end of the day, everyone needs to know that this benefits everyone,” she said.

Good step forward

Peter O’Driscoll, executive director of the Equitable Food Initiative said he’s encouraged to see the emphasis in the Produce Safety Alliance’s curriculum on the importance of training farmworkers.

“The module on Worker Health and Hygiene appropriately concludes that workers can be assets to the food safety plan if trained properly, or liabilities if not trained,” he said.

O’Driscoll noted that the curriculum also points out that workers are taking on additional responsibilities in implementing food safety protocols, and should, therefore, be incentivized.

“This concept is at the heart of EFI’s premium program, which encourages retailers to pay a modest price premium for EFI-certified produce that is returned to farmworkers in the form of a bonus,” said O’Driscoll.

He said he is hopeful that growers will take the Produce Safety Alliance curriculum’s recommendations and implement them in the context of a “broader commitment to building a culture of food safety and responsible labor practices.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

If you think you’re got problems, try being a farmer. They’re faced with an impressive array of enemies that are waging war on their crops and their livelihoods. These adversaries don’t need sophisticated weapons. They’ve got something more deadly — an arsenal of biological ammunition. And for the most part, they’re small, very small, oftentimes microscopic.

To view a larger version of this graphic, please click on the image. Source: USDA

Whether they be the brown marmorated stink bug, a voracious eater that damages fruits and vegetables; the diamondback moth that feeds on cole crops; the Pacific tree frog that likes to munch on leafy greens; silk flies that are fond of sweet corn; the sweet potato white fly, the most destructive insect of sweet potatoes in the world; or all sorts of molds, fungi and powdery mildews that descend on crops, these critters take their toll on farmers’ bottom lines.

And that’s not to mention the microscopic foodborne pathogens such as E. coli, Listeria and Salmonella, which don’t harm the crops, themselves, but can sicken people who eat fruits or vegetables, or even kill them. Such pathogens are frequently what cause foods to be recalled. For farmers, this can lead to lost sales and reputations, and even the loss of their farms.

Taking all of this, and more, into account, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has awarded more than $60 million in Specialty Crop Block Grants to fund 678 projects.

The USDA defines specialty crops as “fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and horticulture and nursery crops, including floriculture.”

Sonia Jimenez, deputy administrator of AMS Special Crops Program, said some of these grants will fund projects designed to enhance food safety by helping specialty crop farmers and other businesses in the crop distribution chain comply with the requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act.

“In addition,” she said, “we encourage farmers to become certified in good agricultural practices, known as GAPs. This certification adds value for specialty crop farmers because, with certification, buyers and handlers of these crops can be confident that the farm has met USDA’s GAP requirements, which are now aligned with the Food and Drug Administration’s Produce Safety Rule.”

Jimenez said in 2016, the Specialty Crop Program launched Group GAP so small farmers and cooperatives could work together to share the costs and benefits of GAP certification by completing the process as a group.

The success of that effort can be measured by the 310 farms that have received Group GAP certification.

About specialty crops
While about a million farmers and landowners who grow a handful of major crops, including corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton, receive about $25 billion in subsidies from the federal government. Specialty crops farmers receive no such subsidies. And while the subsidized farmers are typically large producers, specialty crop growers can range from very small to very large.

With that funding inequity in mind, many farmers, consumers and legislators joined together and called on Congress to come up with something that would help the specialty crop farmers.

The farmers made it clear that they weren’t asking for subsidies. Instead, they wanted the opportunity to apply for grants that would help them with things like technical assistance, food-safety training, research and marketing. They said this sort of assistance would help them be more efficient, productive and profitable.

In 2004, with a strong push from constituents, Congress passed the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act.

The act takes aim at “ensuring an abundant and affordable supply of highly nutritious fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops for American consumers and international markets.”

To do this, changes were made to federal agriculture policy, and the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program became an important part of this change. The program helps state departments of agriculture in the 50 states, America Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands enhance the competitiveness of U.S. grown specialty crops.

Family farms such as this fruit and vegetable operation in Kentucky are often the largest beneficiaries of the overall work done with USDA Specialty Crop Block Grants.

Food safety grants
Many of the Specialty Crop Block Grants are directed toward teaching farmers about the requirements of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), as well as teaching them how to comply. 

The act, which was signed into law in 2011, focuses on how to prevent food from becoming contaminated with foodborne pathogens such as E. coli, Listeria and Salmonella. That differs from past food-safety laws, which were focused more on dealing with contaminated food after people got sick.

While almost all produce growers and processors must abide by the rules, very small-scale growers don’t have to. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be sued should any of their produce make people ill. It’s for that reason that abiding by the rules is important for all specialty crop growers and processors. But more than that, it’s important because the overall goal is to keep food safe, which ultimately benefits consumers.

While food safety grants make up just some of the many grants awarded to fund the 678 projects, they are an important part of the overall effort.

Here are some examples of this type of recently awarded grants:

Alabama
This project will develop a three-hour workshop for preparing farmers to productively complete the Cornell University Produce Safety Alliance (PSA) Grower Training Course, which is based on the FSMA requirements.

The target audiences are the small, limited resource, underrepresented minority, and military veteran specialty crop farmer communities in Alabama and surrounding states. Those farmers who successfully complete the workshop will be assisted in obtaining the materials for the PSA Grower Training Course.

Also, in support of developing and implementing the course, an online question and answer database will be created with input from the farmers in the preparatory workshops as their needs are addressed.

In addition, a series of fact sheets on various food safety topics will be developed and placed online for print-on-demand. As part of the project, three people will be able to apply to become PSA Lead Trainers and the staff who have completed the PSA Train-the-Trainer Course will be increased from six to 10. The expanded staff of trainers will make it possible to offer more workshops with a goal of of having 100 of the targeted farmers complete the PSA Grower Training Course.

Brown marmorated stink bug

Massachusetts
During the past few years, federal and state agencies have sought to minimize the risks of foodborne illnesses associated with produce. In 2002, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Services (AMS) developed the Good Agricultural Practices/Good Handling Practices (GAP/GHP) audit program. In 2011 the harmonized audit concept was introduced. 

Many distributors, supermarkets and cooperatives now require third-party food safety certification from produce growers and packers before they agree to purchase their products.

The proposed initiative would provide direct assistance to Massachusetts Specialty Crop Growers by reimbursing the costs associated with the GAP/GHP or harmonized audits. In order to maintain access to their wholesale and market channels, these growers must be audited every year, which is a costly endeavor for the grower. The audits cost about $92 per hour and a typical audit lasts nine hours with travel, audit time and data entry. The proposed initiative would lessen the financial burden of the grower and would allow these farms to continue to access those channels.

Additionally, there are still growers in Massachusetts who are not currently enrolled in a third-party certification program, but will be required to if they want to continue selling to certain supermarkets and distributors. As part of the initiative, the state will work to ensure these growers are aware of the education and resources available to them. The cost-share program will allow them to maintain access to various markets and increase the competitiveness of specialty crops in Massachusetts.

North Carolina
Personnel from the Institute for Food Safety at Cornell University will develop educational materials and extension trainings to assist specialty crop growers in better understanding sanitary design and implementing sanitation procedures to reduce microbial and chemical food safety risks on farms and in packinghouses.

Virginia
Appalachian Sustainable Development (ASD) and its partners at the Virginia Cooperative Extension and AgCon will enhance the competitiveness of fresh fruits and vegetables by providing training and one-on-one technical assistance to specialty crop farmers across Virginia in support of obtaining the food safety certification they need to access scale appropriate markets. 

Two hundred produce farmers will be prepared to obtain USDA Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Harmonized GAP with Global Addendum certification and will be prepared for Global GAP should the markets make such a change necessary.

Additionally, ASD will work with its partners to enhance and incorporate FSMA’s Produce Safety Rule requirements, including providing FSMA training by qualified lead trainers, establishing clear interpretations for which farmers will need to comply with these rules and when, and developing and delivering appropriate recordkeeping processes and tools. Eighty farmers will receive certifications in USDA GAP, harmonized, harmonized with the global addendum, and other programs and entities.

Water quality questions and answers
Coming up with water-quality standards, for before, during and after harvest, has been a challenge. In fact, the FDA recently proposed extending initial compliance dates for the agricultural water requirements included in the agency’s new produce safety rule by an additional two years.

When he was FDA deputy administrator for foods, Mike Taylor, right, traveled the country, meeting with produce growers and packers to discuss the produce rule and its water testing and quality provisions. Here he checks out the irrigation system used in an onion-growing opreation in the Pacific Northwest.

The produce rule is one of seven mandated by the FSMA and created by FDA. It is the most concerning of the rules for many farmers. If the extension is enacted — the rule is open for public comment — that would give farmers at least four more years until they have to comply with the water testing and quality standards.

“Food safety risks associated with water are especially important for specialty crops, such as produce that is consumed raw,” said Don Stoeckel, an environmental microbiologist who has collaborated with the Cornell National Good Agricultural Practices Program for nearly a decade on water quality issues related to food safety.

“Without processes like cooking that kill pathogenic microorganisms, prevention of contamination by all inputs, including water, is critical.”

When looking at this issue from a farmer’s perspective, Stoeckel said along with its benefits for produce production and quality, water use on the farm is also a cost to the farm business in terms of dollars, time spent, maintaining water sources/availability, and risks to produce safety. Many farms rely on water in their operations, so clarity about rules affecting water use is important.

In the end, a lot of this actually has to do with the consumer.

“The educational awards are one way to get the information into the heads, and hands, of farmers where it can be put into practice to make the produce we eat even more safe — and consistently safe — than it already is,” said Stoeckel.

Several of the Specialty Crop Block Grants target water use and food safety. Here are some examples.

Louisiana
The LSU Agricultural Center has designed and built a chilling system featuring an antimicrobial sprayer for reducing pathogenic loads on the surface of fresh produce and the rapid initiation of the cold chain.

Produce can be contaminated from pathogenic bacteria in irrigation water and from wildlife. These pathogenic bacteria are harvested with the produce and, particularly for produce consumed raw, transferred to the consumer.

The producer is required by FSMA  to address these food safety concerns.

This spray system is intended to be used immediately or shortly after harvesting. The proposed study is to determine and validate the effectiveness of the system in reducing Listeria and E. coli levels on the surface of cantaloupe.

Non-pathogenic bacteria, L. innocua B-33016 and E. coli ATTC 25922, will be used as surrogates to validate the system. The study will involve spraying spray peroxyacetic acid (PA), an antimicrobial agent, in an actual farming environment to test the system’s effectiveness. PA is water soluble, and is commonly used to wash fruits and vegetables to reduce pathogenic bacteria.

The proposed system can spray the chilled antimicrobial agents, wash, and cool the produce in one operation. This should be more efficient from a production standpoint, and is expected to be more effective in reducing pathogen loads compared to washing only. Advantages include no contamination of wash water, rapid and early chilling and a potential for reduced cost. Both quality and safety are expected to be enhanced.

Florida
The Center for Produce Safety in California will partner with the University of Florida to evaluate the application of chitosan microparticles to sanitize agricultural water.

Chitosan is derived from chitin, which is abundant in crustacean shells and is a natural by-product of shellfish processing.

Water used for irrigation or processing of produce has been implicated as a source of pathogen contamination that can persist in aquatic systems. Therefore, irrigation water derived from surface water sources or flumes of wash water are often sanitized with disinfectants such as sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide and peroxyacetic acid.

However, these treatments are only marginally effective and have potential toxicity. Thus, development of novel water treatment methods is needed. This research project will examine the application of chitosan microparticles as a possible pre-harvest treatment in irrigation water and/or as a post-harvest treatment in produce wash water.

The potential of chitosan as a sanitizer is that it offers an economical, biodegradable, and non-toxic alternative to toxic chemicals and that it does not promote resistance to antibiotics.

Chitosan is “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, in other food applications, ensuring a high likelihood of acceptance for agricultural water applications.

Studies will focus on reducing Salmonella and norovirus in natural water sources and on produce, and the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of practical applications will be assessed.

Illinois
The food safety research group at Southern Illinois University will identify safe handling practices for salad greens, cherry tomatoes and melons, and scientifically develop produce washing and handling practices to improve microbial safety and shelf life. The knowledge obtained from project activities will be disseminated to the specialty crop growers through an on-farm workshop, printed media at farmers markets, and online media at SIU and various social media of growers.

The University of Illinois will investigate the impact of alternate water sources including tile water, rainwater, and treated wastewater, on crop quality, soil quality, and potential contamination for specialty tomatoes and herb production in Illinois and disseminate results to stakeholders through grower meetings and field days.

North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Agriculture will reimburse growers up to $1,000 for analysis of water used in growing, harvesting or packaging for the purposes of becoming certified in Good Agricultural Practices through a third-party audit and in preparation of upcoming FSMA enforcement. The FSMA requires

growers to develop a baseline over a four-year period.

This program will assist the growers in deferring the cost of these new rules and in maintaining on‐farm safety certifications.

Virginia
Virginia Tech will attempt to reduce foodborne pathogen contamination in specialty crops by evaluating the risk of pathogen infiltration into susceptible commodities during submersion in water. These findings will directly support the Virginia specialty crop industries including apple, peach, cucumber, cantaloupe and tomato operations in compliance with the produce rule and implementation of feasible science-based interventions to prevent contamination events during post-harvest handling activities.

Results will be communicated to stakeholders through Produce Safety Alliance Grower Trainings throughout Virginia, which is currently the only FDA-approved course for training requirements, and extension forums including Virginia’s Annual Tree Fruit School, grower association meetings, and Virginia Cooperative Extension fact sheets.

Pathogens may infiltrate into the fruit core and inner tissues when warm fruit from the field is submerged in colder water. The project aims to evaluate the risk of Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes infiltration into susceptible specialty crops with ambient (21C and refrigeration, 4C ) temperatures submerged into water at various temperature differentials, simulating common post-harvest practices.

Historically, to prevent pathogen infiltration into fruit during submersion in water, it was recommended that operations achieve a 10 C differential between fruit and post-harvest water. However, recent data showed that decreasing submersion time in water was more effective at reducing pathogen infiltration than reducing temperature differential.

Currently, several specialty crops are submerged in water during post-harvest handling to increase quality and visual aesthetics, thus this proposed research has important food safety implications, as well as safe harbors for produce rule compliance.

When the Agricultural Marketing Service is ready to accept applications for Fiscal Year 2018 Specialty Crop Block Grants, the information will be posted on the AMS website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

It’s the future of meat and poultry — or at least part of the future.

That’s what some investors, among them global agricultural heavyweight Cargill Inc., are saying about meat grown in labs from cells taken from animals without slaughtering them.

On Aug. 22, Memphis Meats Inc. in the Bay Area of California, which so far has produced beef, chicken and duck directly from animal cells, announced it had raised $17 million in funding from investors. Those investors include Cargill, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and entrepreneur billionaire Richard Branson of the Virgin Group. To date, the funding infusion boosts the amount Memphis Meats has raised overall to $22 million.

It plans to use the money to accelerate the scaling up of “clean-meat” production and to reduce production costs to levels comparable to — and ultimately below — conventional meat costs.

Clean meat, cultured meat or conventional meat
“The world loves to eat meat,” said Uma Valeti, cardiologist, co-founder and CEO of Memphis Meats, in a statement. “The way conventional meat is produced today creates challenges for the environment, animal welfare and human health. These are problems that everyone wants to solve.”

The company’s goal: “To bring meat to the plate in a more sustainable, affordable and delicious way.”

Memphis Meats describes this approach as “one of the biggest technological leaps for humanity.” The company contends that producing meat from cells could require up to 90 percent less land and water while reducing greenhouse gas emissions created during conventional meat production.

Just one beef muscle cell can produce one trillion beef-muscle strands. Go here  to see how lab-grown meat is made.

Here’s the beef — and poultry
In January 2016, Memphis Meats introduced its first meatball produced in a lab using cells extracted from a live cow and grown into tissues and then muscle. “The meatball that changed the world,” said Valeti at that time.

“We are growing meat without the need to feed, breed, water or slaughter animals so we can feed the world’s growing appetite for meat in a way that’s better for the environment, animals and humanity,” he said.

Fortune magazine proclaimed “the hottest tech in Silicon Valley made this meatball.”

In April, Memphis Meats followed that feat by offering taste samplings of fried chicken and Duck a l’Orange, both made by growing animal cells from samples collected from live poultry without having to slaughter it. It was described as “the world’s first chicken and duck produced without the animal.”

Valeti described the breakthrough as “the future,” saying that it represents a crucial step toward a world where our meat is produced by growing it from cells. He predicts his company’s products will be on the market by 2021.

Some refer this approach to meat production as “cellular agriculture.” The process would need to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the USDA.

The meat and poultry industry is the largest segment of U.S. Agriculture. Total meat and poultry production in 2012 reached more than 93 billion pounds, according to the North American Meat Institute.

Another choice in the market basket
“This is another way to harvest meat,” Sonya Roberts, the president of growth ventures at Cargill Protein, told the Wall Street Journal. “For people who want a product from an animal-welfare perspective, we want this to be there for them.”

She told Food Safety News the investment in Memphis Meats aligns with Cargill’s mission to nourish people in a safe, responsible and sustainable way as well as with Cargill’s customer-first strategy and focus on growth.

“Investing in Memphis Meats provides our customers and consumers with expanded protein choices,” Roberts said.

Pointing to Cargill’s commitment to growing its traditional protein business and investing in innovative new proteins to ultimately provide a complete basket of goods to its customers, Roberts described the investment as an “exciting way for Cargill to explore the potential of this growing segment of the protein market.”

“Consumers want a variety of choices, which includes both traditional proteins and alternative proteins,” Roberts said. “We know that global demand for protein will continue to grow in the coming years. While cultured protein consumption is very limited today, in comparison to traditional animal protein, this is a growing trend that could potentially be part of this great picture to feed 9 billion people by 2050.”

As for some people’s concerns that “lab meat” — also known as “cultured meat” and “clean meat” — is not natural, Roberts said that it is made of “real animal proteins that aim to minimize the use of natural resources, optimize food safety and provide a high-quality eating experience.”

Cargill’s investment in Memphis Meats marks the first by a conventional meat company into the lab meat sector.

According to the International Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, demand for meat in North America will rise by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020; in Europe, by 7 percent; and in Asia by 56 percent.

Rancher’s doubts, dairyman’s perspective
Washington state cattle rancher Rick Nelson said it sounds like Cargill is trying to cover all bases.

“But at this point, it’s not practical,” he said, pointing to how prohibitively expensive the meat and poultry would be.

“Price is important,” he said. Why do you think McDonald’s is so popular.”

Nelson isn’t worried one bit that this new way of producing meat will put him out of business.

“People complain about GMOs (genetically engineered organisms),” he said. “So I don’t know why they’d want to buy lab meat.”

Former Washington state dairy farmer Dick Klein said he can see some advantages to growing meat and poultry in a lab, especially when considering the world’s growing population.

“When you think of all the feed (grain) you feed to a cow and how that same feed could help feed people, it does seem like it could be put to better use,” he said. He also said that the same goes for water, a resource that is becoming increasingly more valuable due to rising populations.

“No, I’m not against meat made in a lab. It makes sense to find ways to conserve some of the resources fed to cows and chickens. I’ve seen firsthand how much feed and water it takes to raise livestock.”

According to National Geographic, it takes 660 gallons of water to produce a third-pound burger and 468 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of chicken.

Economies of scale
In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, it cost $330,000 to produce. But earlier this year, some industry experts were talking about lab-made burger meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger.

That price drop has not yet translated into marketplace reality. Even so, industry gurus point to technological advances and cost efficiencies of scale that will come with mass production, which, they say will result in considerably lower production costs.

As for chicken, Memphis Meats estimates that the current price per pound for lab-produced chicken meat at about $9,000 per pound, compared to $3.22 per pound for conventional skinless chicken breasts.

Polls have shown that consumers’ initial reaction to lab meat is a decided thumbs down. But when asked “If cultured meat is molecularly identical to beef, pork, etc., and tastes the same, will you switch to eating it?” 83 percent of the 14,614 people participating in a Sam Harris’ Twitter poll, said they would switch. It was noted that 27 percent of those polled were vegetarians.

“Once clean meat is commercially available and is offered alongside conventional meat — and consumers are thereby informed of all its advantages — we at Good Food Institute have no doubt that consumers will opt for the former,” said said Bruce Friedrich, executive director.

That sentiment is nothing new.

In 1931, The Strand magazine reported Winston Churchill had his eye on the future of protein for people. Memphis Meats uses the British Prime Minister’s quote prominently on its website.

“Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium,” Churchill said in The Strand 86 years ago.

What about animal agriculture?
Kay Johnson Smith, CEO of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, said the group supports consumer choice so people can purchase food that meets their values and budgets.

“Given the forecasts that food production will need to double by 2050, lab-grown meat is simply an additional way to help meet that demand,” she said.

But while the alliance isn’t opposed to the product, itself, it does take issue with the marketing term “clean meat.”

“It implies that conventionally raised meat is somehow ‘dirty’ in comparison,” she said, citing that description as a disservice to consumers as well as to farmers, ranchers and processors.

She also said the alliance doesn’t believe lab-grown meat will ever be a replacement for traditional livestock production, even if it does become affordable, simply because people rely on livestock for so many products other than meat.

“Everything from bicycle/car/truck tires to lubricants that keep planes, trains and automobiles running, to computers, medical tools, plastics, musical instruments, sports equipment and so many more,” she said. “Without livestock and poultry production, these other products would not exist.”

She also warned that should lab meats be produced on a massive scale “it’s unknown what the true resource demand and impact will be.”

In an earlier interview with Food Safety, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), A spokesperson for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals),   Kathi Arth, also pointed to non-meat products from livestock as a key variable in the equation.

“We  won’t see the real benefits for animals or the environment (from lab meat) until we replace the meat industry’s ‘profit-heavy’ co-products as well,” she said, listing  leather, dairy foods, fur, feathers and wool as examples.

Does ‘clean meat’ mean safe meat?
Food safety is an important part of cultured — or clean — meat, according Memphis Meats’ corporate philosophy. Valeti said that one of the big advantages of the company’s process is that it can reduce risk of bacterial contamination.

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella, among others,” he said. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.”

Memphis Meats co-founder Uma Valeti, center, watches as the finishing touches are added to a plate of lab-grown chicken.

He said the company’s products are produced in a clean environment, which should  greatly reduce the risk of bacterial contamination or disease.

“Current meat-production systems produce a myriad of avenues for contamination,” he said.

Yaakov Nahmias, a scientist who has done extensive work on liver tissue engineering, said both Salmonella and E. coli are bacteria species that are naturally present in the guts of animals and transmitted through fecal contamination. Very small amounts of the microscopic bacteria can cause serious infections in people. When multiple animals are used for ground products, bacteria from one animal can contaminate large volumes of hamburgers, turkey dogs, etc.

For poultry specifically, he said, salmonella is naturally present in birds’ fecal matter, which extensively contaminates eggs and chicken products produced in factory farms and meat-packing plants.

Another reason for contamination in conventional operations, he said, is the high-density living and transporting conditions, leading to animals defecating on themselves.

“In contrast,” he said, “cultured meat will be produced by biological manufacturing techniques where cells and tissues are grown in sterile environments and carefully monitored for contaminants. As the process will only grow muscle, it won’t be associated with gut bacteria, thus fecal contamination won’t be possible during the production process.

“It’s hard to overemphasize the benefits of this,” he said. “Eating undercooked chicken has become a major health hazard, with 74,000 cases per year of salmonella infection in the United States alone.”

As for antibiotics, which are typically used in meat animals and poultry to fight disease and speed the animals’ growth, the lab meat researchers say they don’t need to use antibiotics in their products because the sterile laboratory process makes them unnecessary.

Nor do they need to use growth-promoting hormones.

This has important implications for human health as well, especially when it comes to concerns about antibiotic resistant bacteria. According to the Center for Food Safety, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

“The meatball that changed the world.”

That was the enthusiastic prediction early last year from Uma Valeti, a cardiologist and now CEO of Memphis Meats, as he admired the freshly cooked meatball arranged gourmet-style on a plate.

Uma Valeti and chef with lab meat meatballjpg
Memphis Meats CEO Uma Valeti watches chef Dave Anderson prepare the “meatball that changed the world.” To watch the video, click on the image.

As a meatball, it definitely had a lot going for it. It was made by specialty chef Dave Anderson, using an Italian recipe. As it cooked in the frying pan, (click here to watch the video) it sizzled and smelled the way a meatball should. And the taste-tester gave it a thumbs-up.

“It tastes like a meatball,” she said. “It tastes good.”

Turns out that the meatball had been produced in a lab by using cells extracted from a live cow and grown into tissues and then muscle. Some people refer to it as lab meat or cultured meat, but researchers and industry leaders prefer to call it “clean meat.”

“It sounds kind of unreal,” said Washington state cattleman Rick Nelson, a tone of disbelief in his voice. “Why would anyone want to eat something like that?  It’s certainly not a natural food.”

To Valeti and others in this fledgling industry, there is nothing unreal about what they’re doing. As for how “natural” it is, they point out that it’s not “fake meat” but rather real meat made from real cells from real animals — animals that don’t have to be killed.

“We are growing meat without the need to feed, breed, water or slaughter animals, so we can feed the world’s growing appetite for meat in a way that’s better for the environment, animals and humanity,” he said.

According to the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, demand for meat in North America will rise by 8 percent between 2011 and 2020; in Europe by 7 percent; and in Asia by 56 percent.

Uma Valeti Memphis Meat CEO
Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meats describes in this video how lab meat is made. Click on the image to view the video.

Valeti said he expects meats made by his company to produce up to 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and need that much less water and land than conventionally produced meat. Also, conventional animal agriculture takes up one-third of the habitable land on Earth and one conventional hamburger requires about 660 gallons of water to produce.

Memphis Meats is also contemplating growing other meats such as chicken and turkey. Valeti predicts its meat products will be just as tasty as meat from conventionally raised animals.

By late 2016, Memphis Meats had already raised $3 million in seed funding for harvesting animal cells and growing meat in the lab. The company is currently in the midst of a fundraising campaign. The goal is to have “clean meat” products on grocery store shelves in the next five years.

There’s a humanitarian element to the company’s mission as well.

“We want Memphis Meats to have a global presence,” said Valeti. “Once we scale up and can produce our meat at a low enough cost, we hope to be able to address issues of global poverty and lack of access to high-quality protein.”

For cattleman Nelson, it’s all a bit far-fetched.

“What are they going to come up with next,” he said. “Will they be able to grow a prime rib?”

Costs will depend on scale op operations
In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, the burger would have cost $330,000. But now some industry experts talk about lab meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger. However, this price has not yet translated into market-place reality.

Industry gurus also point to technological advances and cost efficiencies of scale that will come with mass production and will add up to a considerably lower production costs.

Washington cattle producer Nelson believes price will be one of the major sticking points.

“It’s not too apt to find its way into the hands of consumers,” he said. “Price is important. Why do you think McDonald’s is so popular?

Hey Mom, grow me an extra drumstick
In 2013, the world’s first cultured burger was cooked and eaten in London. That was a catalyst for researchers at Israeli start-up SuperMeat to work toward mass production of so-called cultured meat.

logo SuperMeatExpectations are that the company will be able to mass produce cultured meat under clean and monitored conditions “on a scale never seen before,” said a company spokesperson.

SuperMeat’s corporate materials describe it as the first company to ever work on cultured chicken meat products for mass production. The plan is to organically grow full-size chicken tissue.

According to the company’s description of how this will be done, scientists will take a small biopsy sample from a chicken, segregate it into separate cells that proliferate in culture, and grow them into tissue in an environment that mimics the chicken’s physiology.

They have plans to design small-scale meat production machines, which can be placed in supermarkets, restaurants, and even in people’s homes.

“Our system will eventually enable every household to have its own meat cultivation machine and be able to create its own SuperMeat meals,” says the company’s website.

That’s a far cry from huge flocks of chickens being raised in often-times crowded chicken houses and then being transported to processing facilities where they’ll be slaughtered and then delivered to grocery stores and restaurants.

SuperMeat’s promotional materials say it’s revolutionizing the meat industry by “ushering in the biggest change to the way people consume food since the dawn of the industrial Age.” Some are referring to this “revolution” as “cellular agriculture.”

None other than Winston Churchill appears to have been ahead of the game in this, when in 1931, he said: “Fifty years hence, we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”

Does ‘clean meat’ mean safe meat?
Food safety is an important part of cultured — or clean — meat, according to this statement on Memphis Meats’ website:

“We love meat. But like most Americans, we don’t love the many negative side effects of conventional meat production: environmental degradation, a slew of health risks, animal suffering and food products that contain fecal matter, pathogens and other contaminants.”

Memphis Meats’ Valeti said that one of the big advantages of the company’s process is that it can reduce risk of bacterial contamination.

Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meat
Uma Valeti CEO of Memphis Meat

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella, among others,” he said. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.”

He also pointed out that because the company’s products are produced in a clean environment, “we expect them to greatly reduce the risk of bacterial contamination or disease.”

“Current meat-production systems produce a myriad of avenues for contamination, including fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella,” he said

Yaakov Nahmias, an eminent scientist who, among other accomplishments, has done groundbreaking work on liver tissue engineering, is the head researcher of SuperMeat. He said the lab-grown meat will be produced under sterile conditions.

He pointed out that both salmonella and E. coli are bacteria species that are naturally present in the guts of animals and transmitted through fecal contamination.

For poultry specifically, he said salmonella is naturally present in birds’ fecal matter, which extensively contaminates eggs and chicken products produced in factory farms and meat-packing plants.

Nahmias said another reason for contamination in conventional operations is the high animal density leading to animals defecating on themselves during transportation to the slaughter house.

“In contrast,” he said, “clean cultured meat will be produced by biological manufacturing techniques where cells and tissues are grown in sterile environments and carefully monitored for contaminants. As the process will only grow muscle, it won’t be associated with gut bacteria, thus fecal contamination won’t be possible during the production process.”

“It’s hard to overemphasize the benefits of this,” he said. “Eating undercooked chicken has become a major health hazard, with 74,000 cases per year of salmonella infection in the United States alone.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that pathogens in conventionally produced meat are the most common sources of fatal food-related infections.

As for antibiotics, which are typically used in meat animals and poultry to fight disease and speed the animals’ growth, the lab meat researchers say they don’t need to use antibiotics in their products because the sterile laboratory process makes them unnecessary. Nor do they need to use growth-promoting hormones.

This has important implications for human health as well, especially when it comes to concerns about antibiotic resistant drugs. According to the Center for Food Safety, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics and 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. each year are marketed to food animal producers,

As for food-safety concerns from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), spokesperson Kathi Arth said that lab or clean meat is “real meat, grown from real cells from cows, chickens, pigs, and fish” without inflicting misery on the animals, “and without the mess of massive manure lagoons, which are the breeding grounds for E. coli, campylobacter, and salmonella.”

However, she also said that “we won’t see the real benefits for animals or the environment until we replace the meat industry’s ‘profit-heavy’ co-products as well.” Examples of these products are leather, dairy foods, fur, feathers and wool.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

It’s the silver anniversary for the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program, which marks 25 years with results from samples collected in 2015. It’s a comforting report because it shows American-grown fruits and vegetables are safe because pesticide levels are kept below levels permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has the most stringent restrictions in the world.

USDA 2015 PDP import countries
Residues exceeding EPA levels were found in 54 samples, which is less than 1 percent of all samples tested. One-third of the the 54 samples with excessive residues, 18 samples, were from imports, meaning two-thirds of the samples with residues exceeding EPA levels were from the U.S. To read the report, click on the image.

At the moment, it’s a simple consumer message: Fruits and vegetables are good for you and you don’t have to pay higher prices for “organics” to get the benefits.

One of the users of the USDA data is the Environmental Working Group, which produces an annual “Dirty Dozen” list with a purist perspective when it comes to avoiding pesticides. It usually comes out in the spring.

The “Dirty Dozen” list is certainly a warning to buy “organic” to be safe, but EWG critics say it’s a false warning, especially for the poor at a time when the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says only one in 10 Americans are eating enough fruits and vegetables.

USDA’s publishing of the new data for 2015 starts the cycle for the annual debate for the 25th time.

Before anyone can sell or distribute any pesticide in the Untied States, it must be submitted to EPA, which determines a safe level for it if its to be used in growing or storing food. EPA also determines the residue level that can remain when it reaches the consumer.

USDA’s Agricultural Marking Services (AMS) conducts the sampling program in conjunction with ten states: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington.

‘These states had a prominent role in program planning and policy setting, particularly policies related to quality assurance,” according to this year’s report.

Samples are tested for both pesticides and commodities, and randomly taken to be close to the time and point of consumption without regard to country of origin variety, growing season or organic labeling.

During 2015, fresh and processed fruits and vegetable accounted for 96.9 percent of the 10,187 samples taken during the year. Peanut butter samples accounted for 3.1 percent. Samples included apples, cherries, cucumbers, grapefruit, grapes, green beans, lettuce, nectarines, oranges, peaches, pears, potatoes, spinach, strawberries , sweet corn, tomatoes and watermelon.

About 23 percent of the samples were from imported fruit and vegetables. Except for 0.9 with unknown origins, all the rest — 76.1 percent — were of domestic origin. The laboratories doing the testing are setup to detect the lowest possible levels of pesticides. Samples are washed for 15-20 seconds under gently running cold water before testing.

More than two million results were reported for 2015.

“In 2015, over 99 percent of the samples tested had residues well below the tolerances established by EPA with 15 percent having no detectable pesticide residue,” the USDA reports.

Residues exceeding EPA levels were found in 54 samples, which is less than 1 percent of all samples tested. One third of the the 54 samples with excessive residues, 18 samples, were from imports, meaning two-thirds of the samples with residues exceeding EPA levels were from the U.S.

The Alliance for Food and Farming, which includes both conventional and organic farms, promotes the “exceptionally high level of compliance by farmers of fruits and vegetables to U.S. pesticide laws and regulations…”  It also points out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has concluded that pesticide residues pose no risk or concerns for infants and children.

The alliance also claims produce safety concerns, like those raised by the “Dirty Dozen” list, have a negative import on consumption of both convention and organic fruits and vegetables.

In addition to its “Dirty Dozen” list, the EWG publishes a “Clean Fifteen” group. It also mines some interesting factoids from the data. In the 2014 data it found a single grape sample and a sweet bell pepper sample that each contained 15 pesticides and one strawberry sample containing 17.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Imagine walking down the street in your city neighborhood and stopping by a garden, planted in what used to be a vacant lot, to buy some vegetables or fruit for supper. For many people, this is not pie-in-the sky dreaming. It’s a welcome reality — and a pleasant change in scenery.

As urban agriculture continues to put down roots in cities across the United States, more and more people are beginning to see its many benefits. The hope for the future is that it can flourish and sustain a new crop of farmers and farm businesses and help supply city dwellers with healthy food that’s been grown close by.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, at the Lafayette Greens Community Urban Garden in Detroit to discuss the importance of local agriculture with Garden Manager Gwen Meyer, right.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-MI, at the Lafayette Greens Community Urban Garden in Detroit to discuss the importance of local agriculture with Garden Manager Gwen Meyer, right.

Helping to fuel that hope, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow on Sept. 28, announced the most comprehensive urban agriculture bill to be introduced in Congress. A Democrat from Michigan, Stabenow is ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

The Urban Agriculture Act of 2016 would offer urban farmers new resources through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to Stabenow’s Senate office website. It would create a new urban agriculture office at USDA to coordinate policies across the department and provide urban farmers with technical assistance.

Pointing out that urban agriculture is steadily growing in the United States, the senator said the act will build on this momentum by helping urban farmers get started or expand their business “so they can sell more products and supply more healthy food for their neighbors.”

The bill would boost farming cooperatives, encourage rooftop and vertical farms, invest $10 million in research exploring market opportunities, and develop technologies for lowering energy and water needs.

It would also offer loans to finance food production and marketing; risk-management tools to protect crops, food prices, and contracts; and a mentorship support program.

Stabenow announced her legislation during a press conference at D-Town Farm in Detroit with Mayor Mike Duggan and Michigan urban ag leaders.

Currently at seven acres, D-Town Farm is the largest farm in Detroit. Located in a large city park, it is lined by a see-through deer fence and includes large hoop houses and open beds of tomatoes, garlic, beans and other vegetables. Its produce is sold at farm stands and farmers markets.

Vegetables grown by D-Town Farm offered for sale in recent weeks.
Vegetables grown by D-Town Farm offered for sale in recent weeks.

Launched in 2006 on just one-quarter of an acre, D-Town Farm is an “urban agriculture initiative” of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, which is dedicated to building food security and advocating for food justice for Detroit’s majority African-American community. Blacks or African Americans make up 82.7  percent of the city’s population.

Mayor Mike Duggan said here’s an abundance of available land in Detroit and groups like D-Town farms are putting it to productive use in a way that promotes good health and economic opportunity.

As for the abundance of available land in Detroit, there are an estimated 150,000 abandoned lots within in the city’s 360 acres.

“I hope that Sen. Stabenow’s bill will help efforts like this expand and allow others to follow in their footsteps,” Duggan said.

Long-time urban-ag leader Malik Yakini, executive director of the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, also gives a thumbs-up to Stabenow’s legislation.

“As we rethink how we provide food in an environmentally sustainable way for an increasingly urban population, urban agriculture is an important component,” he said.

When it comes to the economic benefits of this approach, Yakini said “urban agriculture, and the associated businesses needed to support it, helps local economies to thrive.”

He also praised urban agriculture for its ability to grow food closer to population centers, which not only provides people with fresher, more nutrient-rich foods but also reduces the carbon footprint caused by transporting food long distances.

Joan Nelson, executive director of Allen Neighborhood Center, which operates the Allen Market Place in Lansing, MI, had some good news to share about urban ag.

“A steady increase in the number of urban farms in the Capital City is beginning to impact health and nutrition awareness, good food access, and food security, even as it is transforming fragile neighborhoods,” she said.

In praise of Stabenow’s urban ag act, Nelson said it will offer new resources, support, financial tools, educational and economic opportunities that will “most certainly accelerate and strengthen these promising changes in urban communities throughout Michigan.”

A member of the financial community, Dave Armstrong, president and CEO of GreenStone Farm Credit Services, also had good things to say about the legislation, pointing out that it’s an important step in “supporting the evolving agriculture industry.

He pointed to parts of the bill that focus on risk management, education and expanded loan guarantees.

In a conference call with reporters, Stabenow has conceded that the bill likely won’t pass in its current form. But she said it will start the conversation and build broader support for including urban farming as part of the next farm bill.

Starting the conversation

Urban and suburban agriculture comes in many forms, from reclaimed vacant lots in inner cities to repurposed areas in subdivisions. Styles of plantings also vary widely, from raised beds (top photo) to traditional garden plots (bottom photo). (Credits: Danny DeSantiago, top photo, and Jennifer Sowerwine, bottom photo)
Urban and suburban agriculture comes in many forms, from reclaimed vacant lots in inner cities to repurposed areas in subdivisions. Styles of plantings also vary widely, from raised beds (above) to traditional garden plots (below). (Credits: Danny DeSantiago, top photo, and Jennifer Sowerwine, bottom photo)

“It’s really exciting to see this — working toward getting the federal government to making a commitment to urban agriculture,” Jennifer Sowerwine, University of California cooperative extension food systems specialist, said.

“There are so many benefits across the spectrum — health, education, economics, food safety, and community health, among them.”

She also said it presents “tremendous opportunities” for low-income people in cities because urban farms help them learn about nutrition and how to cook fresh produce.

The National Farmers Union (NFU) is also pleased with the bill, saying it would expand USDA programs to support urban farmers, encouraging food production, job creation, urban revitalization and diversity in agriculture production

urban farm Albay CA credit Jennifer Sowerwine
Both of these urban ag operations are in the Albany, CA, area.

“Urban agriculture provides a feasible and sustainable business option for those wanting to get into farming, attracting new faces to the industry that may not have otherwise considered this profession,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. “This bill will help support the programs that are making these opportunities possible.”

City and suburban agriculture can be found in the form of backyard gardens, roof-top and balcony gardening, community gardening in vacant lots and parks, roadside urban fringe agriculture and livestock grazing in open space, according to the USDA.

The USDA does not keep track of the number of urban farms in the United States. But according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 800 million people worldwide grow vegetables or fruits or raise animals in cities.

“Agriculture — including horticulture, livestock, fisheries, forestry, and fodder and milk production — is increasingly spreading to towns and cities,” according to the FAO website. “Urban agriculture provides fresh food, generates employment, recycles urban wastes, creates greenbelts, and strengthens cities’ resilience to climate change.”

What about food safety
The good news is that food safety is included in Stabenow’s bill in a variety of ways.

Stabenow’s spokeswoman Miranda Margowsky cited several sections in the bill that pertain to food safety:

Sec. 101 Increases funding for Extension activities, which can provide food safety technical assistance and good handling practice information.

Sec. 201 Under the business program review, the bill requires that USDA review/evaluate its technical assistance/training for good agriculture practices (GAPs) and food safety record keeping and must develop best practices to reach urban farmers.

Sec. 301 Addresses soil remediation.

Sec. 401 Includes funding for research on food safety issues related to urban agriculture production.

Nothing in the bill would restrict the community garden grant program from funding cooling equipment as part of overall projects.

First, the soil
When it comes to food safety and urban farming, it’s not as simple as pulling out a shovel and planting some seeds in an abandoned lot.

Land use in urban areas often leaves an unfortunate legacy of contaminated soil. Sites of former commercial or industrial buildings are frequently contaminated with asbestos, petroleum products, lead-based paint chips, dust and debris.

In the case of old houses, lead is often concentrated near their foundations. Even an old apple tree can raise suspicions because it could have been sprayed with an arsenic-based pesticide.

Along roadways, vehicle exhausts leave behind lead and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Consequently urban farmers are advised to erect some sort of barrier between busy roadways and their growing areas, if possible.

Soil in former parks and along railroad rights-of-way can harbor pesticide residues.

Regardless of the former use, soil must be tested and remediated, if necessary, to get rid of as many contaminants as possible. But because testing for an array of toxins can be expensive, and because remediating the soil can be a huge challenge and further expense, some urban farmers remove the old soil. They place an impermeable barrier on the ground and add new top soil.

Boston University toxicologist Wendy Heiger-Bernays suggests skipping the testing and proceed as though the soil is contaminated. Again, taking this approach would mean bringing in good soil and compost to the site.

It’s the soil, not the food growing in it
A number of studies concur that the main problem isn’t the food grown in contaminated soil, but rather the danger that comes to people working in the soil.

Cucumber plantA study by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future warns that gardeners can be exposed to soil contaminants in a variety of ways, among them, accidental ingestion, inhalation and skin contact. The study also points out that soil ingestion is even riskier for children, who think nothing of putting their hands in their mouth and who are generally more sensitive to the effects of contaminants.

Elevated blood lead levels in children are linked with cognitive, motor, behavioral and physical problems, including an increased risk of poor performance at school and criminal behavior.

That’s why people working in urban soils should never track the soil into their dwellings on shoes, clothing and tools. As with any activities involving soil, urban agriculture must include frequent and effective hand washing.

A study from the University of Washington found that higher levels of lead in urban garden soils don’t necessary translate into lead-filled fruits and vegetables. While plants do absorb lead from the soil, it usually doesn’t go past the roots. In other words, it doesn’t move through the stems and into leaves or fruits.

But that may mean that root crops such as potatoes, turnips, carrots and beets might have a slightly higher lead content when grown in an urban garden. However, that’s not the case in crops, such as tomatoes and other above-ground produce.

“In fact, the real danger is in the soil, not in items grown in the soil,” says the report.

The study also found that using compost can actually knock out the dangerous effects of lead, even in the roots of plants. In some instances the compost will make the lead insoluble, which means it’s unlikely to be absorbed into the blood stream.

Other studies, among them “When Vacant Lots Become Urban Gardens,” which focuses on food safety concerns of urban agriculture in Ohio, suggest that there are “lower levels of soil contaminants at well-established gardens.” The reason? Tilling the soil and long-term gardening could have diluted the soil metal contaminants by mixing the contaminants with the soil.

Results from the study suggest that “long-term gardening has the potential to reduce soil contaminants and their potential threat to food quality and human health and to improve access to fresh produce in low-income urban communities.”

First lady Michelle Obama used a vegetable garden on the South Lawn at the White house to promote healthy eating as well as her "Let's Move" initiative to help combat childhood obesity.
First lady Michelle Obama used a vegetable garden on the South Lawn at the White house to promote healthy eating as well as her “Let’s Move” initiative to help combat childhood obesity.

Lead levels were part of the discussion when First Lady Michelle Obama decided to plant an organic garden on the South Lawn of the White House. The reason for the initial concern was that the ground previously had be spread with biosolids, also known as sewage sludge.

Testing showed the soil needed no remediation because lead levels were low, far lower than the 200 and 400 ppm that every state agriculture extension agency in the U.S. says is safe for planting crops.

The verdict was that planting crops right in the ground was perfectly appropriate for the White House garden.

For urban gardeners and their customers
Phil Tocco, Michigan State University Extension, has a list of tips for urban gardeners.

Besides being aware of soil contaminants, he advises urban farmers to make sure their equipment — whether it be picking buckets or harvest-preparation tables — be kept sanitary with frequent washing and sanitizing.

Visitors of the human and non-human kind should be monitored at urban growing and packing sites because stray animals, neighbors, and even homeless people can pose food safety risks.

Mariel Borgman, a community food systems educator for Michigan State University Extension, offers these tips for what consumers can ask urban farmers about the safety of their food:

Workers at Urbandale Farm, in a low-income and diverse neighborhood on the eastside of Lansing, MI, help provide fresh, affordable food for residents. The farm is in the city’s 100 year flood plain, using land that otherwise might be unclaimed. It trains three to four urban farm apprentices each year. (Photo courtesy of Urbandale Farm)
Workers at Urbandale Farm, in a low-income and diverse neighborhood on the eastside of Lansing, MI, help provide fresh, affordable food for residents. The farm is in the city’s 100 year flood plain, using land that otherwise might be unclaimed. It trains three to four urban farm apprentices each year. (Photo courtesy of Urbandale Farm)
  • Was the food grown directly in the soil or in raised beds? If it was grown directly in the soil, was the soil tested for lead and other heavy metals? Was it found to be safe?
  • How do you protect the food from critters — rodents, birds, cats, etc.  — and other unwanted visitors? Do you have a fence or some other deterrent?
  • Has this produce been washed and do you use a sanitizer in the wash water? Note: If produce was not washed, it does not mean it is unsafe. This is just one particular practice that a farm may choose to use.
  • How often to you sanitize your harvest equipment and bins?
  • Do you have a food safety plan for your growing operation? Have your employees received training on safe food handling practices?

Borgman also said that it’s always a good idea to wash fruits and vegetables in cool running water before eating them.

The University of California Extension Service’s Jennifer Sowerwine ascribes to WASSH:

W is for water — Is it safe and clean?

A is for animal intrusions — Are they being prevented?

S S is for soil/surface contamination — Are tools and equipment and tables sanitized?

H is for hygiene — Are there restrooms and hand washing stations?

She also suggests that consumer look at the surrounding property, if they are buying urban ag commodities at farm stands. Look for things such as landfills uphill from growing areas that would receive runoff.

Sowerwine, who has been conducting food safety training in the East Bay and other areas of California, is optimistic about how things are going.

“I think there will be a broad-based awareness of food safety and the need to follow best practices,” she said. “The farmers want to make sure what they’re growing is safe and they’re really curious about how to reduce food safety risks.”

Even so, she said they are shocked about the extent of the record keeping that’s required.

“Wow, that’s a lot of paperwork,” she said they frequently tell her.

She understands because she knows the documentation is an added layer of work, which can be hard to get done on top of other work at small farms where there are few employees.

Sower wine said one thing lacking in Stabenow’s bill is a way to deal with the challenges of staying in business when land values are high. For example, a successful urban farm in the Bay Area recently had to close down because the land was slated for development.

“I would really like to see opportunities for some sort of land security and tenure — and additional support to acquire land,” she said.

Additional details on Stabenow’s bill
Agriculture Cooperatives: Expands USDA authority to support farm cooperatives in urban areas, helping urban farmers who want to form and operate an agriculture cooperative get products to market. Reduces individual financial risk and burdensome paperwork by allowing USDA loans to be managed by agriculture cooperatives.

Rooftops, Vertical Farms & Indoor Production: Makes it easier for urban farms to apply for USDA farm programs and assists producers with information on operating rooftop and vertical farms. Supports access to land and production sites in urban communities through innovative conservation grants.

Cutting-Edge Research: Invests $10 million for cutting-edge research to explore market opportunities for urban agriculture and develop new technologies for lowering energy and water needs. Includes national data collection and a new urban agriculture section in the Local and Regional Foods market report.

Loans: Expands existing USDA farm loan programs so urban farmers can cover new farm related activities that improve their business. Now urban farmers can use farm loans to finance food production, marketing, and value-added processing.

Risk Management Tools: Provides a new affordable risk management tool for urban farmers to protect against crop losses, taking into account the risks, food prices and contracts unique to urban farms.

New Urban Ag Office: Creates a new urban agriculture office at USDA to coordinate urban agriculture policies across the Department and provide urban farmers with technical assistance.

Mentorship and Education: Connects urban farmers with rural farmers to provide education and mentorship support.

Community Gardens: Invests $5 million for tools and equipment to develop community gardens that provide community-based nutrition education and donate a portion of the food grown to help feed their neighbors.

Healthy Food: Creates a new pilot program that provides incentives to urban farmers who use sustainable growing practices and commit to supplying healthy food to their neighbors, connecting urban farms with families who need greater access to healthy, local foods.

Soil Remediation: Expands resources for technical and financial support to test and clean up contaminated soils, and invests in new research on the best practices for soil remediation.

Urban Composting: Creates a pilot program to provide urban farmers access to compost while reducing food waste that would otherwise go into landfills.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)