The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is causing a stir among farmers and
consumers throughout the nation. The
new act, a set of rules and regulations created by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to create safeguards in food production, could place a
large financial and logistical burden on small to mid-scale farmers across the
U.S. Any farm making over $25,000 a year
in produce sales could be affected, i.e. most fruit and vegetable production
farms in America. The act also places
undue burden on farms that use organic and sustainable practices. Should the rules stay as is, it will be more
difficult for many farmers to stay in business, it may deter beginning farmers
from farming, and it may make fruits and vegetables more expensive. During a time when the country is bleeding farmers,
particularly young ones, and when fruits and vegetables are not readily
accessible or affordable for many Americans, this act could have dire
consequences both for our agricultural system and our public health.
*The information
gathered for this blog post was obtained from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition website. NSAC provides a great analysis of
FSMA. The analysis I provide below is
not perfect and only highlights a few aspects of FSMA. For more up-to-date, detailed information
please visit the NSAC website.
Background
Let us flashback to 1938, the year that FSMA was first
created. In an effort to feed Americans
both at home and oversees in WWII the U.S. agricultural system had to move
large quantities of food efficiently and safely. FSMA was, therefore, in fact a good
thing. For without FSMA, there would be
no safeguards against distributing large quantities of contaminated food to the
American people.
Now let us fast-forward to 1990 and the creation of the
National Organic Program (NOP). In
response to popular consumer demand, the
National Organic Program, a program initiated through the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), created more markets for organic foods, i.e. foods grown
without synthetic chemicals. As a result
of the NOP, consumers now have a choice to buy organic or non-organic foods in
the marketplace. Hold onto this idea and
historical event. I will bring up how it
relates to FSMA later.
Now let us jump forward to 2002 when the USDA created a voluntary certification program for
farmers called the “Good Agricultural Practices” program (known by many as
“GAP”). GAP is one of the most commonly
recognized certifications among institutions and grocery stores. GAP sets forth a set of stringent guidelines
that safeguard against the risk of spreading biological contaminants on produce
later to be sold on the market. GAP certification is not required by law. Many restaurants and farmers’ markets do not
require GAP certified produce. “Why
might not everyone require that their produce be GAP certified?” you may
ask. The answer: GAP certification can be costly for some
farms, particularly smaller farms, and it places a large logistical burden on
farmers. GAP certification requires
intensive documentation that can be unreasonable for smaller farms to complete,
given the smaller size of their staff. GAP
is also not as necessary for smaller farms sourcing directly to restaurants or
farmers’ markets. Many restaurants ask
that farmers sign contracts with a certain amount of liability coverage before
accepting a farmer’s produce. In the
event that any produce becomes contaminated, the restaurant can easily trace
the produce back to the farmer and the
farmer is held liable. A similar idea
holds for farmers’ markets. Should a
farmers’ produce be contaminated it is easily traceable. GAP was put in place specifically to create
additional safeguards for the movement of large quantities of produce from many
different farms to many different institutions.
On a larger scale, it is much more difficult to trace back the source of
contamination and hold a particular farm liable. Therefore in the case of large-scale distribution,
GAP, like the original FSMA rule passed in 1938, can be a good thing. Although a good thing, however, it is also
good that GAP is voluntary. Smaller farmers
can opt to get GAP certified if they choose to sell produce to larger
institutions and if they have the capacity and resources to do so.
Now, lastly I want to add to this stew of historical events
an E. Coli outbreak in 2006, originating from a vegetable field in California,
and the increased threat of bioterrorism in the U.S., resulting from 9/11. These two realities have created a sense of
urgency among rule makers at the FDA to better standardize food safety in the
U.S. The concerns of rule makers are
legitimate, but the way in which they go about making the rules needs to be an
intentional process that takes into account the livelihoods of farms of all
sizes and approaches.
Now you are prepared to talk about FSMA.
FSMA Today
So what is the problem with the new proposed FSMA guidelines
and why should you care?
For the Farmer: The 4 C’s:
Cost, Contradiction, Compost, and Conservation
Cost
First, I want you to revisit my discussion of GAP in the Background section. The new FSMA guidelines are in many ways
similar to GAP guidelines. There are
several differences as well, however, the premise is the same. FSMA has the potential to be costly for some
farms, particularly smaller farms, and it places a large logistical burden on
farmers. According to the FDA, the costs
required to update a farm’s operations to be in compliance with the new FSMA
rules can range anywhere between about $4,500 for a small farm to about $30,500
for a larger farm. When considering a
small farm that grosses $25,000 a year, $4,500 is a large cost. Such high costs can also deter beginning
farmers and potentially put smaller farms out of business. FSMA, also like GAP, requires intensive
documentation that can be unreasonable for smaller farms to complete, given the
smaller size of their staff.
Additionally, should a farm want to maintain sales to direct
markets (such as restaurants and farmers’ markets), it seems unnecessary that
farms be required to comply with FSMA rules.
It appears as though the intent of FSMA is to create additional
safeguards against the risk of food contamination at a large scale. In instances, where large amounts of produce
are being transported to markets and institutions across the country, then
there is a place for FSMA, just as there is a place for GAP. However, in instances where it is easy to
trace food back to the farmer (i.e. when food is sourced directly from the farm
to a restaurant or a farmers’ market), it does not seem as necessary to require
these additional regulations and safeguards.
On a small scale, a farmer, who has a direct relationship with a
restaurant or his customer, is already heavily affected by the burden of
accountability. It is in the direct interest
of the small farmer to provide quality produce, because he is likely to lose
his customers if he does not. The onus
of accountability may be burden enough.
Contradiction
Another major issue with FSMA is that it creates regulations
only for biological contaminants on produce.
Therefore, it places an undue burden on farms that use organic and
sustainable practices. Conventional
farms that use synthetic chemicals are not included in the new FSMA regulations. This reality raises the question that we, as
a society, have to ask ourselves. Should
we not be equally concerned about chemical contaminants on our food as we are
biological contaminants?
Compost
In the new FSMA regulations, if you are a farm that uses
compost generated on-site and/or if you use any animal-derived amendments, then
you may be negatively affected. The new
FSMA rules require a waiting period of approximately 9 months between when
compost is put down and crops are harvested (if there is risk that the produce
may come in contact with the ground).
Annual crops generally take a fraction of that time to mature. Therefore, farmers would have to leave a
field fallow for 9 months after compost application before planting, at which point
many of the nutrients may have leached from the soil. This regulation may force many farmers to go
the route of chemical amendments, which are not regulated under the rules. For farmers wanting to be organic certified,
chemical amendments are not an option. This
regulation is also in direct conflict with National Organic Program standards,
which requires and recommends a reapplication of compost at 3-4 month
intervals.
Conservation
In the conversation section of the FSMA regulations, the FDA
makes a claim that it wants both to support sustainable conservation practices
and food safety. However, it does little
to address how sustainable conservation practices should be implemented. In addition, in the Domesticated and Wild Animal section of FSMA, there is language
that implies that animals should be kept off land that is to be in fruit and
vegetable production. There are various
different regulations for domesticated versus wild animals. However, by implying that farmers should keep
wild animals off their property, farmers may be encouraged to rid of natural
areas around their property. Both the
lack of language about conserving natural areas around farms in the Conservation section of FSMA and the
language that encourages the removal of wild animals from farm areas in the Domesticated and Wild Animal section,
may further encourage farmers to rid of natural areas around farms. Natural areas around farms support native
pollinators and beneficial animals that aid in the functioning of a healthy agro-ecosystem.
For the Consumer
As a consumer, if you value getting fresh produce from local
farmers, as well as from farmers that use sustainable and/or organic practices,
then the new FSMA regulations will affect you too. Should the regulations pass as is, the costs
to the farmer will also be passed on to you, the consumer. Additionally, over the long term it may
reduce your options of organic and/or local produce. The new regulations put a great amount of
burden particularly on smaller farms and organic farms.
Be a part of the Movement and Take Action
The new FSMA rules are open for public comment, so now is
the perfect time for you to make your voice heard. We need everyone to comment, so please take a
few minutes out of your day to visit the two links below and send a comment to
FDA.
For Consumers:
For Farmers:
These links provide detailed instructions about how to
submit a comment, and it also provides sample comments for you to use as a
guide. Please try to make your comments
as unique as possible, and please do not copy the sample. These links also provide more detailed
analysis of the proposed rules, should you want to learn more about how the
rules will affect you.
Farmers it may be helpful to pick one or two of the issues
in the Produce Rule that directly affect you and comment on those rules. Give a personal story, and do not be afraid
to tell FDA how the new rules would affect you.
Some small farms are exempt from some of the rules. However, it is advised that all farms and
farmers comment. Even if you may be
exempt now, the rules may eventually affect you either directly or indirectly.
Be a part of the movement and help make a difference!
