Produce Industry Balks at Food Security Guidelines

In the rush to adopt new protections against bioterrorism, at least one part of the food industry is trying to put on the brakes.

Fresh-produce shippers have in recent weeks lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to specifically exclude them from its new guidelines urging tamper-resistant packaging and other security measures. The produce industry fears burdensome regulation if Congress adopts these guidelines as part of food security legislation later this year.

The preemptive strike illustrates a behind-the-scenes battle over food security regulations that many in the industry believe are unnecessary, ineffective and costly, ultimately driving up prices for consumers.

“It’s not because we don’t care about food security,” said Kathy Means, a vice president of the Produce Marketing Assn. “Companies marketing fresh produce are acutely aware of the need to protect the food supply, and many have already taken appropriate measures.”

The FDA’s guidelines are now the only road map for the $1.3-trillion food chain to protect against bioterrorism. The Department of Agriculture still is working on its own guidelines, Neither is imposing mandatory restrictions.

The FDA’s advisory deals with everything from screening employees and suppliers to conducting recalls. The agency also is considering urging tamper-resistant packaging on all items, including fruits and vegetables in the produce aisle, a move that prompted objections.

The Produce Marketing Assn. says requiring tamper-resistant wrap or boxes would be devastating for fruit and vegetable shippers. It wouldn’t allow produce to “breathe” and would raise temperatures and encourage rot, costing millions of dollars.

“You’d dramatically drive up the cost of fruits and vegetables doing that,” said Tim Shaheen, chief executive of Bakersfield-based Sun World International, a large fruit marketer. “You have to weigh the benefits and risks of doing something like this.”

Produce, he said, still could be tampered with in the field, with contaminants sealed into packaging.

Produce groups also are opposing measures urging bar-code stickers or other means of tracing individual pieces of produce to the field where they were grown.

Such a system doesn’t exist now and would be expensive and difficult to develop and administrate, Means said. And ultimately, industry officials say, if a sick consumer disposes of the sticker before eating the fruit, it would be useless as a tool in containing illness.

The FDA released its food security guidelines for manufacturers, suppliers and retailers in January. The guidelines were developed in cooperation with the food industry--mostly the packaged food segment. According to one FDA official, the guidelines are just a laundry list, not necessarily “applicable to everyone.”

However, because the guidelines could be used by Congress in drafting food security regulations, all sectors of the food industry have weighed in to protect their own economic interests.

Most food safety advocates say the guidelines do not effectively protect consumers from intentional tampering.

“The FDA’s guidelines are a very weak shield against the risk of bioterrorism,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. “Whether or not consumers are protected is up to the people supplying the food.”

And though more producers and manufacturers have a heightened sense of concern, there is no hard evidence that the guidelines are being adopted by companies of all sizes, Smith DeWaal says.

Rarely in its history has the food industry had to grapple with security issues. Analysts say food firms and trade groups have struggled since Sept. 11 to come up with universal guidelines to help protect consumers.

Farm interests have faced a more difficult challenge than their food-processing counterparts. How do you protect miles of open farm land, dairy pastures and ranches and open produce bins in supermarket aisles?

There are many different issues for each food sector, from plants to animals, said Linda Harris, a professor of food science at UC Davis.

Until better methods of securing cropland and protecting produce can be developed, monitoring is better left up to the agriculture industry, Harris said.

“Self-regulation or monitoring is as effective or more effective than having the government mandate something that is equally vague,” she said.

Great strides, she said, have been made in the last five years in the industry’s ability to trace boxes of produce back to producers and individual lots taken off farms. And more can be done to speed the process.

Much of the FDA’s guidelines were derived from precautions that large processed-food companies already were taking to protect themselves and their very visible brand names, said Peter Cleary of the Grocery Manufacturers Assn.

Since then, firms also have begun exploring the security of their packaging, he said, determining whether they need to make it easier for consumers to tell if packaging has been tampered with, much as over-the-counter drug companies did in the 1980s after containers of Tylenol were laced with cyanide.

Supermarkets say they are doing their part to prevent bioterrorism by conducting additional food security training, restricting access in loading areas and, in some cases, even closing vulnerable areas such as open salad bars.

Yet, food safety experts say, there are no regimens in place that could give consumers an absolute assurance of safety.

And all of this additional security could come with a higher price tag for consumers.

“You can’t put fences around everything,” Sun World’s Shaheen said. “That would just double the cost and not necessarily solve the problem.”