Plan for California Seal of Approval on Produce Hit

Twenty consumer groups and a Republican assemblyman attacked a Deukmejian Administration plan Wednesday to let farmers use a California seal guaranteeing the “safety” of produce, including fruits and vegetables treated with a wide range of pesticides.

Under the plan quietly developed by state officials, agricultural interests and retailers, farmers would be allowed to buy copies of the seal and put it on all their produce as long as they followed California’s existing pesticide regulations.

“California Department of Food and Agriculture,” the label would read, “Quality and Safety Assured.”

Consumer and environmental activists, joined by Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando (R-San Pedro), blasted the plan as a deceitful maneuver intended to suggest that produce is safe even when it contains toxic residues.

“They are playing the consumers as saps,” said Felando, a victim of a blood-related cancer who has become a leading critic of pesticide contamination. “It’s a public relations program that’s a fraud; it’s a fraud on the public.”

Veda Federighi, a spokeswoman for the Department of Food and Agriculture, said the program was designed to counter a widespread fear among the public that the food supply is contaminated with toxic chemicals.

She said growers and the department began developing the program in response to the widespread public rejection of apples treated with Alar, a growth-inducing chemical. The nationwide controversy over Alar was sparked by a Natural Resources Defense Council report charging that the chemical poses a high risk of causing cancer in children.

“We have always maintained and continue to maintain that food is safe,” Federighi said. “There isn’t an actual problem but there is a problem in public perception.”

Although officials of the Department of Food and Agriculture are anxious to begin the labeling program, it has not yet received the approval of Gov. George Deukmejian.

In fact, the governor’s office has questioned whether the label, with its assurance of safety, could result in liability for the state if a product sold under the seal turns out to be tainted. The Administration has asked Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp to review the legal issues involved before growers begin using the seal.

“There are some minor legal problems to be worked out,” said Daniel Haley, chief deputy director of the agriculture department. “We have no reason to believe the program will not go forward in the very near future.”

Haley said the purpose of the program is to make the public aware of the state’s efforts to protect the food supply through pesticide regulation. Although grocers would be permitted to put the label on individual fruits or vegetables, Haley said, the state is not necessarily assuring that each item is safe.

“The program is not to guarantee that every single fruit and vegetable, piece by piece, is safe,” he said. “The program is meant to say that there is (pesticide regulation) in place that assures the safety of their food.”

Opponents of the seal contend that the state would be putting itself in a vulnerable position by allowing farmers to use the seal. They point to the 1985 contamination of watermelons with illegally used aldicarb that resulted in the illness of nearly 1,000 people.

Haley acknowledged that a similar incident could put the state in a legal bind if the growers were to use the state seal. But he added, “Overall we have a safe food supply. How many people are going to get sick? Very few.”

As envisioned by the Department of Food and Agriculture, farmers would pay one penny each time they put the seal on a container of produce grown in California. The money raised by the fee would be used in part to increase the inspection of produce, enabling the state to analyze chemical residues on an additional 2,500 individual fruits and vegetables each year. The state now inspects about 13,000 samples annually.

Growers and packers participating in the program would have to agree to report to the state the quantity and types of pesticides they have used.

When word leaked out that the Department of Food and Agriculture was planning the labeling program, response from the consumer and environmental community was swift.

Consumers Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Consumer Pesticide Project, the Environmental Defense Fund, Campaign California and 15 other groups asked growers and retailers to join in opposing the plan. They also called on Deukmejian to scrap the program. “Don’t tell us that toxics are OK. We know better,” said Harry Snyder, a spokesman for Consumers Union. “Rather than labeling products that have pesticides, we should be labeling products that don’t have pesticides.”