    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     READY-TO-EAT OR NOT?: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF LEAFY GREENS MARKETING
                                   AGREEMENTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 29, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-126

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                         http://www.oversight.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-914                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia          BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
        Columbia                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             ------ ------
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    ------ ------

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

                        Subcommittee on Domestic Policy

                       DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          DAN BURTON, Indiana
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
                        Jaron R. Bourke, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 29, 2009....................................     1
    Statement of:
        Cobb, Kelly, survivor of E. Coli poisoning; Scott Horsfall,
          chief executive officer, California Leafy Greens Marketing
          Board; Dale Coke, farmer and member, Community Alliance
          with Family Farmers; and Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of
          food science, Center for Science in the Public Interest....    51
            Cobb, Kelly..............................................    51
            Coke, Dale...............................................    63
            DeWaal, Caroline Smith...................................    70
            Horsfall, Scott..........................................    57
        Taylor, Michael R., Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of
          Food and Drugs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and
          Rayne Pegg, Administrator, Agriculture Marketing Service,
          U.S. Department of Agriculture.............................     8
            Pegg, Rayne..............................................    28
            Taylor, Michael R........................................     8
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Cobb, Kelly, survivor of E. Coli poisoning, prepared
          statement of...............................................    53
        Coke, Dale, farmer and member, Community Alliance with Family
          Farmers, prepared statement of.............................    65
        DeWaal, Caroline Smith, director of food science, Center for
          Science in the Public Interest, prepared statement of......    72
        Horsfall, Scott, chief executive officer, California Leafy
          Greens Marketing Board, prepared statement of..............    59
        Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Ohio, prepared statement of...................     4
        Pegg, Rayne, Administrator, Agriculture Marketing Service,
          U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared statement of......    30
        Taylor, Michael R., Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of
          Food and Drugs, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, prepared
          statement of...............................................    11

     READY-TO-EAT OR NOT?: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF LEAFY GREENS MARKETING
                                   AGREEMENTS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
                       Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Dennis
    J. Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kucinich, Jordan, Cummings, and
    Watson.
        Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Jean Gosa,
    Clerk; Charisma Williams, Staff Assistant; Leneal Scott,
    Information Systems Manager, full committee; Adam Hodge, Deputy
    Press Secretary, full committee; Dan Blankenburg, minority
    director of outreach and senior advisor; Adam Fromm, minority
    chief clerk & Member Liaison; Ashley Callen, minority Counsel;
    and Molly Boyl, minority Professional Staff Member.
        Mr. Kucinich. The committee will come to order. I am
    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Chair of the Domestic Policy
    Subcommittee of Oversight and Government Reform. I am joined
    today by the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Jordan of
    Ohio.
        Today's hearing will examine the safety of ready to eat
    produce and the successes and challenges posed by the
    California Leafy Greens Handler Marketing Agreement. For the
    sake of this hearing we are going to use the acronym CALGMA.
    When you hear CALGMA, it stands for California Leafy Greens
    Handler Marketing Agreement. We are going to also be talking
    about the proposed nationalization of that agreement.
        The hearing will focus on bagged or value-added leafy
    greens marketed as ready to eat. Consumers are quite familiar
    with those products. We are going to look at the role of
    private industry and government in regulating these products
    and the economic, environmental, and food safety impacts of
    that regulation.
        Without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority
    member will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed
    by opening statements of other Members not to exceed 3 minutes
    by any Member who seeks recognition.
        Without objection, Members and witnesses have five
    legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous
    materials for the record.
        Without objection, the chairman and ranking member will
    each have 10 minutes for questions in the first round, after
    which we will proceed under the 5-minute rule.
        Pre-cut packaged leafy greens marketed as ready to eat have
    become increasingly popular, capturing 70 percent of the leafy
    greens market. Americans appreciate the convenience of this
    partially processed product and are eating more fresh produce
    as a result. That is a good and important development that will
    likely help to improve the health of Americans.
        Yet as the popularity of bagged lettuce and spinach has
    increased, so have rare but serious food-borne illnesses
    associated with it. Outbreaks of E. coli 0157 and other
    pathogens have occurred in relation to pre-cut packaged leafy
    greens at least once a year practically every year since 2003.
        Regulation to prevent these outbreaks rest in the hands of
    the industry. The California Leafy Greens Handler Marketing
    Agreement, CALGMA, was implemented to stave off regulatory
    action by the State of California. CALGMA ensures adherence to
    a specified set of good agricultural practices designed
    primarily by the Food and Drug Administration to improve the
    safety of leafy greens.
        In spite of its name, CALGMA is having an impact on farmers
    in all parts of the Nation due to the requirement of compliance
    with CALGMA imposed by national processing and retailing
    outlets that buy and market their produce.
        The USDA is currently proposing the creation of a national
    marketing agreement along the lines of CALGMA.
        There is much good in the CALGMA initiative. CALGMA
    embodies private industry's positive efforts to safeguard the
    American food supply. Handlers responsible for growers'
    compliance with food safety metrics pay for auditors trained by
    the USDA and hired by the CALGMA Board to carry out surprise
    and scheduled inspections of standards adopted voluntarily by
    signatory farmers.
        CALGMA, however, has some blind spots as well. It condones
    a processing activity favored by the ready to eat processing
    industry known as coring, coring lettuce in the field. It only
    suggests minimal guidelines for sanitary treatment of harvest
    equipment used for coring in spite of recent scientific
    research identifying the potential for transferring pathogens
    deep into the cored lettuce where the subsequent washing
    process would be unable to reach.
        CALGMA is silent on the use of certain packaging of ready
    to eat produce known as modified atmosphere packaging, the bags
    of ready to eat greens.
        CALGMA does not require an enforceable standard of cold
    chain of distribution. It does not impose tough requirements on
    packagers and distributors relating to the ``best consumed by''
    date that is stamped on the ready to eat packaging. People have
    seen those. They don't have any tough requirements on those
    packagers and distributors who put that stamp on there.
        Scientists tell us that if bagged produce labeled as ready
    to eat is not constantly refrigerated through the distribution
    chain, it quickly becomes a perfect habitat for bacterial
    growth. Harmful bacteria such as E. coli 0157 multiply unseen
    to and undetectable by the eye of the consumer. Legions of
    pathogens can thereby invade the unsuspecting consumers'
    intestinal tract, overwhelming his or her immune system and
    causing severe and painful complications or, in some cases,
    death. Everyone who has experienced severe food poisoning knows
    what is at stake.
        While it is largely silent on key questions applying to
    upstream processing and distribution of ready to eat produce,
    CALGMA has a lot to say about farming practices and land
    stewardship. Small and organic farmers in particular have
    expressed concern about the costs and the scientific
    justification for some of CALGMA's requirements. Some of
    CALGMA's metrics seem to be in direct conflict with
    environmental protection and widely accepted agricultural
    practices. In some cases, streams have been contaminated,
    wildlife refuges destroyed, and biodiversity threatened by
    farmers' efforts to remain in compliance with CALGMA.
        Today we hope to address why CALGMA's regulatory framework
    has focused solely on farming practices to the exclusion of the
    rest of the supply chain. It seems the farmers have taken the
    brunt of the burden of minimizing contamination when it may
    make more scientific sense to focus attention on the
    processing, packaging, and distribution of ready to eat
    produce.
        Consumers have a right to expect that the food they eat is
    safe. It is in the public health interest that Americans
    consume greater amounts of raw vegetables. But whether or not
    nationalizing CALGMA as the USDA proposed is the best way to
    achieve those goals is a question of this hearing.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today
    on this important issue.
        At this time I recognize the honorable Congressman Jordan,
    the ranking member of the committee, from the State of Ohio.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.002

        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank you for
    holding this hearing to examine the impact of the leafy greens
    marketing agreements.
        Most importantly, we need to have a food supply that is
    safe. Americans should be able to feel confident that the
    produce they buy at the grocery store or that is served to them
    at restaurants will not make them sick.
        Leafy greens marketing agreements such as CALGMA may be an
    effective way to ensure safer produce. However, additional
    guidelines and regulations may be overly burdensome to some
    farmers, especially small or family owned and run farms. I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses about their experiences
    with the marketing agreements.
        The FDA and USDA also play key roles in food safety and
    agricultural marketing. I am interested to hear how these roles
    may change if a leafy greens marketing agreement is made
    national.
        Additionally, I hope that our witnesses can discuss the
    implications of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of
    2009, which was scheduled to be voted on yesterday and may in
    fact be voted on later today. I look forward to hearing your
    thoughts on that legislation as well.
        I also look forward to examining the pros and cons of
    making national the CALGMA agreement.
        I thank our witnesses for taking the time to testify here
    in front of the committee today. With that, I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. Does the gentlelady
    from California have an opening statement?
        Ms. Watson. I do, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you so much
    for holding today's hearing to examine the leafy greens market;
    the role of private industry and Government in regulating these
    products; and the economic, environmental, and food safety
    impacts of the California Leafy Greens Handlers Marketing
    Agreement. The hearing is happening at a very opportune time.
        Since 2003, pre-cut bagged lettuce has developed into the
    second fastest growth industry in U.S. grocery sales. I am from
    California. We believe in salads, making it critically
    important that adequate precautions are taken and analyses
    conducted to ensure that this increasingly popular food is not
    just nutritious but safe.
        We have taken steps, Mr. Chairman, in the State of
    California to regulate the sale of not only the leafy greens
    packages but those in the bins as well.
        Some 98\1/2\ percent of the E. coli outbreaks reported in
    leafy greens have been associated with bagged and pre-cut
    greens. The infamous 2006 spinach outbreak resulted in over 200
    hospitalizations, nearly $400 million in lost product, and
    three deaths confirmed by the FDA.
        In response to this and other similar instances, industry
    leaders developed the California Leafy Greens Handlers
    Marketing Agreement to allow growers to join a voluntary
    regulatory framework which now encompasses 99 percent of
    California's leafy greens business and is being considered for
    official nationalization. I chaired those committee meetings,
    Mr. Chairman, when I was Chairperson of Health and Human
    Services.
        The CALGMA includes a food safety inspection program
    conducted by the USDA and the enforcement of metrics or
    regulations developed by scientists, governmental officials,
    growers, processors, and businesses to reduce microbial
    contamination of leafy greens in the field-to-fork supply
    chain.
        While I am pleased that the farming industry has taken the
    initiative to create this comprehensive framework for food
    safety, I believe it is important to scrutinize its
    effectiveness and its impact on the environment. Some have
    argued that the rules placed on farmers by CALGMA conflict with
    the movement toward organic and biologically diverse farming
    methods and could be actually harming the environment.
    Furthermore, it may prove to be a counterintuitive to create
    such regulations before there is conclusive scientific
    knowledge about how E. coli makes its way into the leafy greens
    supply.
        I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
    make this presentation. I am sorry that I cannot stay. They
    just called an emergency meeting of the Progressive Caucus to
    discuss the health care reform bill at 2:30. I just wanted you
    to know that. But I have staff here and I will be hearing from
    them as to the witnesses and their testimony. So thank you so
    much. I yield back.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentlelady. I am sure she will
    convey my sentiments in that meeting of the Progressive Caucus.
    You can let them know that I am given the responsibility of
    chairing this hearing. Thank you for being here with that
    opening statement.
        If there are no additional opening statements, the
    subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses
    before us today. I want to start by introducing our first
    panel.
        Mr. Michael R. Taylor is the Senior Advisor to the
    Commissioner of Food and Drugs at the Food and Drug
    Administration. Mr. Taylor, welcome. Mr. Taylor previously
    served as Deputy Commissioner for Policy and is a member of the
    National Academy of Science's Committee on Environmental
    Decision-Making Under Uncertainty. He has held numerous
    positions in the field of food safety and research, among them
    Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Services at the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture and Vice President for Public
    Policy at Monsanto Corp. He was also a practicing attorney in
    the field at the law firm of King & Spalding.
        Ms. Rayne Pegg is the Administrator of the Agriculture
    Marketing Service, AMS, the marketing and regulatory arm of the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. Welcome, Ms. Pegg. Prior to
    being appointed Administrator at AMS, Ms. Pegg was Deputy
    Secretary of Legislation and Policy for the California
    Department of Food and Agriculture. She has also served as
    director of International Trade and Plant Health for the
    California Farm Bureau Federation's National Affairs and
    Research Division and as the director of Governmental Relations
    to the Agricultural Council of California.
        Thank you for appearing before our subcommittee today. It
    is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government
    Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I would
    ask that you rise and please raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary
    of their testimony and to keep this summary under 5 minutes in
    duration. I want you to know that your entire statement and
    anything else you want to append to it will be included in the
    hearing record.
        Mr. Taylor, you will be our first witness. You may proceed.
    You have 5 minutes.

        STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL R. TAYLOR, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE
          COMMISSIONER OF FOOD AND DRUGS, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG
      ADMINISTRATION; AND RAYNE PEGG, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURE
           MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. TAYLOR

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and Mr. Jordan. I
    am Michael Taylor, Senior Advisor to the Commissioner at the
    Food and Drug Administration which, as you know, is part of the
    Department of Health and Human Services. I am pleased to be
    with you today to discuss issues related to the safety of fresh
    produce.
        As you know, FDA is the Federal agency that is responsible
    for regulating most of the food supply except for meat,
    poultry, and processed egg products which are overseen by our
    partners at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. FDA is
    committed to ensuring that the U.S. food supply continues to be
    among the safest in the world.
        President Obama has made it a personal commitment to
    improving food safety. On July 7th of this year, the multi-
    agency Food Safety Working Group that the President established
    issued its key findings on how to upgrade the food safety
    system for the 21st century. The working group recommends a new
    public health-focused approach to food safety based on three
    core principles: prioritizing prevention, strengthening
    surveillance and enforcement, and improving response and
    recovery. FDA has been an integral part of the working group's
    continuing efforts to establish these principles.
        Fresh produce, the topic of today's hearing, presents
    special safety challenges, as the chairman outlined. The number
    of illnesses associated with fresh produce is a continuing
    concern for FDA.
        The increased consumption of produce in its fresh or raw
    form, including ready to eat bagged products, reflects growing
    consumer interest in healthy eating, as you indicated, which is
    of course a desirable trend from a public health standpoint.
    But these new consumption patterns and products challenge our
    food safety efforts. Fresh produce has the potential to be a
    source of food-borne illness because it is consumed raw with
    only minimal processing and generally without interventions
    that would eliminate any pathogens that may be present.
        Because most produce is grown in an outdoor environment, it
    is susceptible to contamination from pathogens present in the
    soil, in manure used as fertilizer, from the presence of
    animals in or near fields or packing areas, or in agricultural
    water or water used for washing or cooling. Produce may also be
    vulnerable to contamination due to inadequate worker health and
    hygiene protections, environmental conditions, inadequate
    production safeguards, or inadequate sanitation of equipment
    and facilities.
        Fresh produce is produced on tens of thousands of farms and
    contamination at any one step in the growing, packing, and
    processing chain can be amplified throughout the subsequent
    steps. But we also know that the possibility of harmful
    contamination can be minimized by understanding these potential
    entry points for pathogens and by implementing preventative
    measures wherever possible throughout the system.
        Thus, in keeping with the Obama administration's prevention
    oriented food safety strategy, FDA intends to improve safety of
    fresh produce by establishing enforceable standards for the
    implementation of science-based preventative controls
    throughout the chain of production, processing, and
    distribution. These regulations will capitalize on what we and
    the produce industry have learned over the past decade since we
    published our good agricultural practices guidance in 1998.
    They will tap the best science to develop appropriate criteria
    or metrics for ensuring the effectiveness of preventative
    controls in particular production and processing settings.
        In the short term, FDA will issue commodity-specific
    guidance for industry on the measures that they can implement
    now to prevent or minimize microbial hazards of fresh produce.
    FDA will soon publish draft guidance for improving the safety
    of leafy greens, melons, and tomatoes, three specific
    commodities that have been associated with food-borne illness
    outbreaks. The guidance describe preventative controls that
    industry can implement to reduce the risk of microbial
    contamination in the growing, harvesting, transporting, and
    distribution of these commodities.
        It is not enough, of course, to issue regulations and
    guidance. We must also ensure that the preventative measures
    they call for are widely and effectively implemented. To that
    end, FDA will work with its Federal and State partners to plan
    and implement an inspection and enforcement program aimed at
    ensuring high rates of compliance with the produce safety
    regulations. FDA recognizes the importance of leveraging the
    expertise and resources of other Federal, State, and local
    agencies to be sure that the industry understands the new
    requirements and to help them achieve greater compliance.
        One way we can leverage resources is to work with the
    Agricultural Marketing Service as they consider and implement
    marketing agreements and orders. Incorporating FDA standards
    into voluntary marketing agreements and then conducting audits
    to ensure compliance by those who subscribe to such agreements
    thus contributes to the goal we all share, which is widespread
    compliance with modern preventative control measures. We
    believe that AMS, by incorporating FDA's produce safety
    standards in marketing agreements or orders, can help ensure
    high rates of compliance with FDA's standards.
        In addition to highlighting measures that the Executive
    branch can implement to enhance food safety, the White House
    Food Safety Working Group also noted the need for Congress to
    modernize the food safety statutes. Legislative authorities for
    FDA that would enhance the safety of products include the
    enhanced ability to require science-based preventative
    controls, the enhanced ability to establish and enforce
    performance standards to measure the implementation of proper
    food safety procedures, access to basic food safety records, a
    new inspection mandate, and other tools to foster compliance
    and other provisions.
        The Food Safety Enhancement Act, H.R. 2749, being
    considered by the House today addresses these needs. The Obama
    administration strongly supports its passage.
        I thank you again for the chance to be here, Mr. Chairman.
    I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.019

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Ms. Pegg,
    you may proceed. Thank you.

                        STATEMENT OF RAYNE PEGG

        Ms. Pegg. Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. Good afternoon and thank you for the invitation
    to appear here before you today. I appreciate the opportunity
    to share with you a brief overview of our activities regarding
    marketing orders and agreements for fruits and vegetables.
        As Mr. Taylor stated, FDA is the Federal agency responsible
    for food safety of fruits and vegetables. At USDA, the Food
    Safety and Inspection Service holds similar responsibility for
    meat, poultry, and egg products.
        The mission of AMS is to facilitate the marketing of
    agricultural products. AMS is not a food safety agency. We are
    an agency with a long history of working with producers and
    processors. Our marketing programs involve the inspection of
    product quality and the verification of production processes.
        Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937,
    marketing orders and agreements assist farmers and handlers by
    allowing them to collectively work to solve marketing problems.
    These programs are industry-initiated and subject to public
    review.
        There is a seven step process in initiating a marketing
    agreement. The industry petitions the USDA, which recently
    occurred on the national leafy greens marketing agreement. USDA
    holds public meetings, which we will be having on the national
    leafy greens marketing agreement in September and October. We
    review all comments and either terminate the proceedings or
    publish a proposed rule.
        In the past we have terminated proceedings of a potential
    marketing agreement or order. USDA publishes a final agreement
    and appoints a committee. The committee develops best
    practices. Those best practices are published for public
    comment and then USDA publishes final metrics or best
    practices.
        Marketing agreements only apply to handlers who voluntarily
    sign an agreement. Fees are collected from handlers to cover
    local costs of administering these programs.
        The act provides authority to regulate the quality of
    commodities through Federal agreements. USDA considers harmful
    pathogens and toxins to be a characteristic of lower quality
    products. Federal marketing orders and agreements include
    minimum quality grade requirements which can be identified by
    the presence of mold, insect infestation, foreign material, or
    other contaminants.
        The marketing order for California prunes has had
    inspection and fumigation requirements relative to live insect
    infestations since 1961. Since 1977, California raisins have
    required the absence of dirt, insects, and mold. Beginning in
    2005, pistachio handlers were required to test all nuts
    destined for human consumption for Aflatoxin, which, if
    present, would lower the quality and market value of
    pistachios.
        On June 8th, AMS received an industry proposal for a
    national marketing agreement for lettuce, spinach, and other
    leafy greens. The purpose of the proposed agreement is to
    enhance the quality and increase the marketability of fresh
    leafy greens vegetable products through the application of good
    agricultural and handling practices. Requirements implemented
    under the proposed program would be science-based, conform to
    FDA guidance to minimize food safety risks, and be subject to
    USDA oversight.
        The program would only be binding on signatory handlers.
    The program would require signatories to verify that any
    product handled comes from producers or handlers using verified
    good agricultural and handling practices. The program would
    authorize unannounced audits and apply to imports. Any product
    deemed an immediate food safety risk concern by USDA inspection
    would be reported to FDA.
        We are aware that there are concerns from various groups on
    the proposed marketing agreement. We welcome comments from
    those and other interested parties and will carefully consider
    them.
        To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that
    the Federal food safety policies for fruits and vegetables fall
    under the jurisdiction of FDA. However, AMS does have
    significant experience in the design and delivery of marketing
    programs, including marketing orders and agreements. The
    process for potentially establishing a marketing order or
    agreement is an open and transparent process in which AMS
    carefully considers all viewpoints.
        I am happy to respond to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pegg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.029

        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentlelady.
        We will now proceed with 10 minutes of questions beginning
    with myself. Then I will turn it over to Mr. Jordan. I would
    like to start with Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor, ready to eat is a marketing slogan assuring
    that the salad in the package is safe for consumption without
    requiring further washing or cutting by the consumer. The
    California Leafy Greens Handlers Marketing Agreement, CALGMA,
    is a voluntary industry-sponsored means of ensuring the quality
    and safety of processed leafy greens, including those to be
    marketed as ready to eat. It was developed to preempt
    legislative regulatory action from the California State
    Assembly.
        Has CALGMA made pre-cut salads safer than they were before?
    If yes, what is the basis for that opinion?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, the producer practices embodied
    in that agreement, if implemented, make a contribution to
    making the food safer. I think we all understand that the
    safety of the product ultimately depends on what happens not
    only at that point on the production end but through processing
    and the way the product is handled throughout.
        Mr. Kucinich. When you say contribution, what do you mean?
    What is the science behind that?
        Mr. Taylor. The safety of these products really depends
    fundamentally on prevention of contamination in the first
    place. For a raw, fresh product, we don't have processing steps
    that decisively kill pathogens. So prevention throughout the
    system is the key to safety. The point is that the on farm
    practices embodied in the agreement make a contribution.
        Mr. Kucinich. But isn't it true that since CALGMA went into
    effect there have still been food-borne illnesses traced to the
    bagged leafy lettuce produce?
        Mr. Taylor. Absolutely.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do you remember some of them. The 2008
    romaine lettuce outbreak, do you remember that?
        Mr. Taylor. I was not in the Government then but I am aware
    of these outbreaks.
        Mr. Kucinich. Are you aware of iceberg lettuce outbreak
    also in that year?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes, I think.
        Mr. Kucinich. Isn't it true that nearly every case since
    1999 of outbreaks of food-borne pathogens that were traced to
    leafy greens involved pre-cut packaged leafy greens and not
    whole leafy greens, Mr. Taylor?
        Mr. Taylor. Improving the safety of these products is a
    work in progress, Mr. Chairman. Let me just mention another
    thing----
        Mr. Kucinich. No, wait. You didn't answer my question,
    though. One of the things about being in front of this
    committee, it is a lot easier if you answer the question. You
    didn't answer the question. Please answer the question.
        Mr. Taylor. If the question is whether the marketing
    agreement has solved the problem of fresh produce safety, no.
    The answer is no, of course it hasn't.
        Mr. Kucinich. I asked you a question, though. You didn't
    answer. I am going to repeat it just to make sure that you
    heard it. I asked you, isn't it true that in nearly every case
    since 1999, outbreaks of food-borne pathogens that were traced
    to leafy greens involved pre-cut packaged leafy greens and not
    whole leafy greens? Yes or no.
        Mr. Taylor. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Now, Mr. Taylor, doesn't that
    suggest that the processing of leafy greens is a significant
    factor in causing outbreaks of food-borne pathogens?
        Mr. Taylor. There are features of that process that do
    create an environment for pathogen growth. You are absolutely
    right.
        Mr. Kucinich. Is that a yes or a no?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK. According to the CEO of CALGMA, the FDA
    reviewed the good agricultural practices and metrics imposed by
    CALGMA. The USDA insists that its marketing agreement program
    is consistent with FDA guidelines and regulations.
        One thing we have noticed in our review of CALGMA is that a
    lot of requirements are imposed on farmers while comparatively
    less burdensome guidance is suggested to the processors who buy
    the greens from the farmers and turn them into pre-cut packaged
    salads for marketing to the public. Even when I look at your
    testimony, you are still pretty heavy on the farmers' side. For
    instance, CALGMA prohibits farmers from planting within 400
    feet of a hedge row on the questionable basis that wildlife
    poses a significant risk of contamination, but CALGMA allows
    the processing activity of coring lettuce in the field, an
    activity that the FDA acknowledges has the potential for
    contamination, with only minimal guidance for the washing and
    storing of knives used to core lettuce. It seems to be a double
    standard, Mr. Taylor.
        Is CALGMA's imposition of detailed requirements on farmers
    but only suggested guidelines on handlers and distributors
    justified by the science on how to make pre-cut salads safer?
        Mr. Taylor. The science says we need enforceable
    preventative measures throughout the system from farm through
    distribution. That is why the Food and Drug Administration is
    going to issue regulations that would do exactly that.
        Mr. Kucinich. The science says that but what about CALGMA's
    requirements on farmers as opposed to guidance on handlers and
    distributors? What you are saying, then, is there is a gap. Are
    you saying that?
        Mr. Taylor. There is a lot of work to do to improve the
    safety of produce. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. In fact, doesn't the FDA's 2008 guidance for
    the industry to minimize microbial food safety hazards for
    fresh cut foods and vegetables incorporate specific standards
    for processing, packaging, and transporting leafy greens that
    CALGMA does not? Isn't that true?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK, we are making progress.
        Ms. Pegg, I can't tell you how many times farmers,
    especially small farmers, have told me that the USDA represents
    everybody but the farmers. Let us hope the new administration
    succeeds in changing that impression.
        In the next panel we are going to hear from a farmer who
    has a lot of criticism for CALGMA. We are going to hear from a
    survivor of E. coli poisoning related to pre-cut lettuce that
    she ate in 2008.
        As you know, USDA is actively promoting the nationalization
    of CALGMA. What is the USDA's position on CALGMA's apparent
    double standard in that it prescribes specific if not always
    scientifically supportable requirements on farmers while it
    condones questionable processing protocols that benefit
    processing companies such as coring lettuce in the field?
        Ms. Pegg. We do not have a position on the current national
    leafy greens marketing proposal. That is before the public. It
    is at the very beginning of the process. The hearings will
    begin in September and October.
        Mr. Kucinich. What do you think?
        Ms. Pegg. What do I think?
        Mr. Kucinich. What do you think?
        Ms. Pegg. I think at the end of the day the program needs
    to work for small producers. It needs to work for different
    cultural practices and regional differences. I think at the end
    of the day that is the only way you are going to have the best
    national program.
        Mr. Kucinich. At the end of the day do you think the
    processing companies ought to have protocols that are
    protective of the consumers?
        Ms. Pegg. Processors, yes, should. Everyone has to play a
    part in food safety in the chain.
        Mr. Kucinich. Including processors? Not just the farmers
    but processors as well?
        Ms. Pegg. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Kucinich. Ms. Pegg, if CALGMA becomes nationalized,
    there will likely be increased costs on growers, farmers, as
    they take mitigation measures to be in compliance with the
    CALGMA requirements. These costs will be both financial as well
    as environmental. Examples include the costs of turning areas
    of land that might have been previously wild into empty lots
    and the associated land erosion, runoff, and stream
    contamination that follow. With this in mind, do you believe
    that the USDA should consider environmental impacts when
    promoting marketing agreements and regulating food production?
        Ms. Pegg. Yes. We must consider environmental impacts. We
    must make sure that it is compliant with State and Federal
    laws.
        I think the other point you bring up is that right now
    farmers are facing, and I just got an email last night from a
    farmer I know in California, buyers who are requiring good
    agricultural practices. So even without the marketing agreement
    you are seeing buyers demanding good agricultural practices of
    farmers.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let us talk about a specific issue that would
    matter to the processors as opposed to the farmers. Isn't it
    true that the ``best consumed by'' expiration date that is
    stamped is now 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves the
    processing plant while only 7 years ago the ``best consumed
    by'' date for fresh cut produce was more like 5 to 10 days?
        Ms. Pegg. I actually have no knowledge of the ``best
    consumed by'' date. I think that may be an FDA issue.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK, let us go to Mr. Taylor. She deferred to
    you.
        Ms. Pegg. Oh, sorry.
        Mr. Kucinich. Did you get the question?
        Mr. Taylor. We are partners here, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. I see that partnership. Now I want to find
    out how good of a partner you are. Can you answer the question?
        Mr. Taylor. Those ``best consumed by'' dates are really a
    company measure. Those aren't an FDA requirement. They address
    product quality in principle.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK, they are company measures. But isn't it
    true that the ``best consumed by'' date that is stamped right
    now is about 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves the
    processing plant? Is that right or not?
        Mr. Taylor. I don't personally have those facts at my
    disposal. I don't have any reason to----
        Mr. Kucinich. You need to have them. You are the guy. You
    got to have them. It is 15 to 17 days after the produce leaves
    the processing plant. But a few years ago, Mr. Jordan, the
    ``best consumed by'' date for fresh produce was more like 5 to
    10 days.
        I would ask you, Mr. Taylor, to take note of that. Wouldn't
    it show you that you are closing a window here a little bit on
    issues of safety? You are opening up the possibilities of
    contamination, especially if these bagged leafy greens become
    hothouses of contamination if there is not consistent
    refrigeration?
        Mr. Taylor. Again, science-based preventative controls are
    all about understanding issues just like that. What is the
    likelihood of growth? What are the conditions that would reduce
    growth? What is an acceptable holding period for products? So
    in doing our preventative control regulations, that is the kind
    of issue that we will need to address.
        Mr. Kucinich. I have one final question and then we are
    going to go over to my colleague, Mr. Jordan. Ms. Pegg, CALGMA
    is silent on the selection of ``best consumed by'' dates. It
    doesn't require processors to reverse the trend of longer and
    longer ``best consumed by'' dates. Isn't that right?
        Ms. Pegg. I really don't know. I don't know what the----
        Mr. Kucinich. The correct answer in this case was yes.
        Ms. Pegg. Oh, OK.
        Mr. Kucinich. We are going to go to Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank our
    witnesses again for being here.
        Let me just pick up where the chairman was. Mr. Taylor, you
    said you didn't know the 15 to 17 days now or that it was a few
    years ago 5 to 10 days. Is it that you personally don't know or
    is that something that the USDA does not track and does not
    have any knowledge of?
        Mr. Taylor. Well, I am with the Food and Drug
    Administration.
        Mr. Jordan. The FDA, excuse me.
        Mr. Taylor. I don't personally know. I am confident that
    our technical experts would have that information. We can
    certainly share what knowledge we have with you for sure.
        Mr. Jordan. Ms. Pegg, would you say that the chairman's
    statement was accurate, that what has happened over the last
    several years is that date has gone from 5 to 10 to 15 to 17?
        Ms. Pegg. I remember a lot of discussion about this in 2006
    when the outbreak occurred but I don't know what the guidance
    is or where the trends have gone. I don't have any information
    on that right now.
        Mr. Jordan. We are going to have votes here in a few
    minutes. One of the bills we are going to be voting on is Mr.
    Dingell's legislation, at least it looks like that. Give me
    your thoughts on that piece of legislation. I know many in the
    agriculture community are concerned about that.
        Ms. Pegg, I think you said in your introduction at least to
    the chairman that you have a background with the California
    Farm Bureau. So let us start with you. What are your thoughts
    on that bill that looks like it is going to be on the floor
    here in just a few minutes?
        Ms. Pegg. We do support the bill. We look at what the
    working group produces as they review current statutes and
    regulatory authorities. We are looking at how we can move into
    the 21st century. I think what many of these measures----
        Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you specifically about some of the
    concerns we have heard from folks in agriculture.
        Ms. Pegg. I got a long email last night.
        Mr. Jordan. In particular, your former employer, the Farm
    Bureau, do you think they are way off base? Or, recognizing
    where you worked before, do you think they have some valid
    concerns?
        Ms. Pegg. I think in working with FDA and USDA we have a
    good partnership where we can both educate one another about
    what happens in the field and can assist in giving guidance on
    food safety practices. So I think it is a good partnership.
    That is why I personally do not necessarily share the concerns
    of my former employers.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Taylor, would you like to comment on that
    bill?
        Mr. Taylor. I think the core strength of this bill is that
    it would have Congress mandate the shift to a prevention
    strategy and empower FDA to set and enforce standards for
    preventative controls that will make food safer throughout the
    system. For produce, it would of course direct FDA to issue
    regulations to establish enforceable preventative controls.
    Importantly, it would direct FDA to take into account the
    diversity of the grower community and to take into account
    environmental impacts. These are all factors that have to be
    considered in order to get it right in terms of having an
    abundant, safe supply of fresh produce, which is an important
    goal that we all share.
        With respect to the concerns of the agricultural community,
    we have looked at the bill really hard. I think the bill has
    evolved a lot. It now very much focuses FDA's authorities with
    respect to on farm activity to those areas such as fresh
    produce where there is going to be a science-based or risk-
    based justification for establishing standards. So I think this
    is a fairly focused bill in terms of its impact on farming.
        Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you a practical question. Think of
    the family out there who this time of year sets up the sweet
    corn stand to make a few extra dollars for their family. Tell
    me the impact of the legislation on the floor today or of what
    we are talking about here in this hearing. Tell me how they
    might be impacted.
        Mr. Taylor. In developing regulations like this for an
    industry that has that degree of diversity----
        Mr. Jordan. In my background, I remember dealing with this
    back at the State House. It was an uproar when there were some
    changes in the State of Ohio on how we were going to address
    truck farms or whatever the official title is they are given in
    the Ohio revised code. We heard from mom and pop produce
    businesses all over the State.
        Mr. Taylor. Activities like that, it is very hard to
    envision how a Federal regulation could establish a meaningful
    preventative control regime for an operation like that. So
    again, taking the command of the bill seriously, we would look
    at where the appropriate exemptions are and how do you put the
    boundaries around these requirements so that we achieve the
    food safety objective but also do it in a feasible, realistic
    way. That is the command we hope we get from Congress. We plan
    to do that.
        Mr. Jordan. Ms. Pegg.
        Ms. Pegg. I think he does bring up a lot. You have to take
    into consideration what happens at different scales. I think we
    will be working a lot with FDA on the implementation of it and
    providing our experience and our guidance there in that area.
        Mr. Taylor. Absolutely.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Kucinich. We will go to a second round of questions.
    This should be a little bit shorter. Then we will go to the
    next panel.
        Mr. Taylor, if you stretch out that ``best consumed by''
    date on ready to eat produce, it is a benefit for the
    processor. It obviously facilitates long distance
    transportation. Instead of 5 to 10 days, 15 to 17 days for
    ``best used by.'' But isn't a shorter ``best consumed by''
    period in the interest of protecting the public's health, Mr.
    Taylor?
        Mr. Taylor. The question is what are the holding conditions
    for that product and what is the nature of the product. I think
    you have to have a scientific answer to that question. There is
    no question that if you have pathogen growth potential and you
    are not using cold chain sorts of safe handling practices then
    the longer you hold the product, the greater the risk. So I
    think that we need a science-based answer to what is right
    there.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let us look at a science-based case. In the
    case of the 2006 E. coli 0157 outbreak that affected at least
    204 people, has the FDA correlated the location and date of the
    consumption of the tainted spinach and the date of illness with
    the date of harvesting? Harvested, ``best used by,'' 204 people
    with E. coli, have you done the correlations?
        Mr. Taylor. I don't know the answer to that. I started 4
    weeks ago. I can find out what investigation was done and we
    can brief you all and give you an answer later. It is a fair
    question.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK. Since you don't know the answer and you
    started 4 weeks ago--it is lovely to have you here--will the
    FDA submit in writing to this committee for inclusion in the
    record a spreadsheet with that information for each of the
    known victims of E. coli 0157 poisoning? Namely, we want the
    location and date of consumption of the tainted products, the
    date of illness, and the original date of processing. Can you
    do that?
        Mr. Taylor. We will provide you the information we have.
        Mr. Kucinich. If you could do that, we would really
    appreciate that. As a matter of fact, while we are at it, could
    you do that for all produce related outbreaks since 1999? You
    know which ones they are. We have talked about a few of them.
        Just create a spreadsheet. It shouldn't take too long to do
    since you already have the information. Put it in a usable form
    for this committee. It can help us in our deliberations about
    this issue of the transportation time and the ``best used by''
    date, which so many consumers use as guidelines as to whether
    or not to consume something.
        I have one final question for each of the witnesses. Mr.
    Taylor, given CALGMA's purpose to protect public health by
    reducing microbial contamination of leafy greens in the
    ``field-to-fork distribution supply chain,'' wouldn't it be
    more consistent with the purpose of CALGMA to include science-
    based restrictions on the packaging, distribution, and
    marketing practices of ready to eat produce rather than
    CALGMA's current near silence or lack of specific requirements
    on those issues?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I can't speak to the permissible
    scope of marketing agreements at USDA. But the answer to
    whether we need standards at each of those stages along the way
    that are enforceable and set by the Food and Drug
    Administration is clearly yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Science-based?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kucinich. Ms. Pegg.
        Ms. Pegg. Just to differentiate, too, the California
    Marketing Agreement is based on the California Marketing Act.
    We are looking at a national program. I think that through this
    process as well as the public process we can ensure that a
    final program does include all those components.
        Mr. Kucinich. Before we conclude this, I would like to go
    back to Mr. Taylor. I want to read you a few opinions about the
    effect of the packaging used to market ready to eat produce.
        ``Because of the higher relative humidity of ready to eat
    packages, the risk of pathogenic growth is higher. Each degree
    over 40 degrees will increase the rate of pathogenic growth.''
    This is from Larry Beuchat, Ph.D., at the Center for Food
    Safety of the University of Georgia.
        ``The problem comes when leafy greens are coming home in
    ready to eat bags. If they are left anywhere when temperatures
    are above 50 degrees Fahrenheit, it is widely known they can
    become breeding grounds for bacteria.'' That is from Mr. R.
    Atwill, Ph.D., of the Western Institute for Food Safety and
    Security.
        ``It is a perfect environment for all kinds of things to
    grow.'' That is from Elisa Odabashian, the West Coast director
    of Consumer Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.
        Mr. Taylor, isn't true that all confirmed incidents of E.
    coli 0157 outbreaks since 1999 have been caused by pre-cut
    packaged greens?
        Mr. Taylor. As far as I know. I am only qualifying that
    because I am under oath and just don't want to misstate it.
        Mr. Kucinich. The Chair recognizes Mr. Jordan. Do you want
    to take 5 minutes?
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you. I will be brief. I just have a quick
    question on the bill that is going to be on the floor here in a
    few minutes.
        According to what we have looked at in the bill, this gives
    the FDA pretty broad authority to regulate how crops are
    raised. In effect--I will be interested, I know we have a
    farmer on the next panel--dictating how farmers produce their
    crop. Is that your understanding of how the legislation is
    going to work?
        Mr. Taylor. There is no sort of broad authority for FDA to
    tell farmers how to grow their crops. There is a very specific
    authority that if we, based on science, can identify a
    commodity that poses risks that can be addressed through
    preventative control measures, such as the industry itself is
    implementing, then we are empowered in that specific case to
    establish enforceable standards. But it is not a broad
    preventative control mandate.
        Mr. Jordan. It seems to me, as the chairman has gone to
    great lengths to point out and I think appropriately so, that
    the problem doesn't seem to be with the farmer producing the
    crop. It seems to be elsewhere in the supply chain, elsewhere
    in the processing or transportation or what have you.
        That is my concern. The farmer knows how to produce his
    crop. Let's not over-regulate and overburden this guy who is
    producing the food. Let's certainly not go out there and make
    it difficult for the mom and pop who are setting up the wagon
    and selling sweet corn to the neighbors and to the
    neighborhood. But we just know how government works.
        Look, we were told last year that we are just going to have
    one small little bailout. We promise it will just be one little
    bailout and this thing won't grow. We don't want to get into
    the private sector. Well, we have seen what has happened in the
    last year just in the financial industry, let alone the
    automotive industry. So these always start out with great
    intentions, but we know the pattern of government and what
    typically happens. That is my concern. Frankly, it is in a
    large degree the chairman's concern. Certainly, lots of folks
    in agriculture, it is their concern because they just know the
    nature of government.
        It is tough enough many times for folks in agriculture to
    deal with the State Department of Agriculture and other
    regulatory agencies at the State level, let alone now Big
    Brother in Washington telling them how to run their farm or how
    to run their business. That is my big concern.
        We will continue to watch this whole process relative to
    the bill and the issue we are addressing here in the committee.
        With that, I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. We are going to go to
    one more round here before we get to the next panel.
        Ms. Pegg, here is another example of something farmers have
    a problem with. CALGMA identifies a number of sources of
    potential pathogens that must be avoided for certification.
    These include birds, feral pigs, and other wildlife as well as
    cattle. To comply, farmers are paying for measures such as the
    building of large fences to thwart wildlife. But the science is
    hardly conclusive, Ms. Pegg, that the wildlife was a likely
    source of contamination in the 2006 spinach contamination.
    Isn't that so?
        Ms. Pegg. Well, in the 2006 outbreak, actually there was,
    and maybe FDA can speak to this, but there was concern about
    wildlife in that outbreak that did occur. Wild pigs were the
    wildlife in question.
        Mr. Kucinich. You are saying there was concern. Is that
    evidence-based or is it conjectural? What is the basis of that
    concern? Was it conclusive or was it conjectural? Was it
    science-based? What was it?
        Ms. Pegg. Maybe you can speak to the investigation but if
    you have been to the Salinas Valley and that region----
        Mr. Kucinich. I have been to Salinas Valley.
        Ms. Pegg. OK. In that area there is some known wildlife
    activity. Now, the California Leafy Greens Handlers Marketing
    Agreement does look at other potential risks. They also do rank
    wildlife as high risk or low risk.
        Mr. Kucinich. In order to facilitate this hearing, I would
    like you to supply to this committee the information about the
    basis of your statement that wildlife was somehow connected
    with this. I would like to see some scientific backup of that,
    OK?
        Ms. Pegg. OK, I will get that. It is for the 2006 outbreak?
        Mr. Kucinich. Right, exactly.
        Ms. Pegg, a leafy greens field's proximity to cattle is a
    high risk circumstance for E. coli contamination. Does CALGMA
    make distinctions between high risk circumstances and low risk
    circumstances such as the presence of frogs or other wildlife?
    Does CALGMA prioritize, in other words, high risk circumstances
    while deprioritizing low risk circumstances?
        Ms. Pegg. I believe it does.
        Mr. Kucinich. Isn't it true that all farms have to
    eliminate riparian areas and hedge rows if they are within a
    CALGMA specified distance from a crop edge?
        Ms. Pegg. I am not positive on the current best practices
    on that.
        Mr. Kucinich. Ms. Pegg, I want you to look at this slide on
    the screen. Can staff put the slide up? OK. The aerial
    photograph above was taken before CALGMA. You can plainly see a
    strip of green between several fields where trees and hedges
    are and where birds and wildlife can take shelter. Now look at
    the aerial photograph below, taken after CALGMA. Here you can
    plainly see that the strip of trees and hedges has been
    eliminated. There is no wildlife there.
        Isn't it true, Ms. Pegg, that CALGMA would have required
    the cutting down of those trees?
        Ms. Pegg. I don't know if I can speak to that because I
    don't know if they are CALGMA participants. This has been a
    huge issue. We have discussed this since 2006, how do you deal
    with whether there are there real risks or not. I was talking
    to California Fish and Game this week about it. It is a big
    issue.
        Mr. Kucinich. You are the Nation's advocate for farmers.
    Does it make sense for the USDA to advocate for a processor-
    based framework that requires all farmers to spend heavily to
    prevent low-risk events such as contamination by wildlife while
    the higher risk but rarer circumstance of proximity to cattle
    and the known risks associated with processing and packaging
    leafy greens are more significant contributors to the problems
    CALGMA intends to address?
        Ms. Pegg. Any program needs to address the risks and look
    at high risks versus low risks. I think what we are looking at
    in terms of any program is all chains in the process and how to
    reduce the risks.
        Mr. Kucinich. So who should pay for compliance with CALGMA,
    the farmer or the processing industry? Should the cost be
    shared?
        Ms. Pegg. Under the marketing agreement, I believe they
    propose a per carton assessment that the handler pays to cover
    the costs of the marketing agreement.
        Mr. Kucinich. So who currently pays for the measures
    adopted to comply with CALGMA?
        Ms. Pegg. I think for the California Leafy Greens Handlers
    Marketing Agreement, that is a per carton assessment that pays
    for it.
        Mr. Kucinich. Farmers.
        Ms. Pegg. Their handler signatories. So handlers pay it.
        Mr. Kucinich. Farmers.
        OK, I think we have completed questioning of the first
    panel. We will be in touch with you regarding the followup on
    questions that we have asked. We appreciate your cooperation
    with the committee and your presence here today.
        Those buzzers that you heard are the reason why I am going
    to have to recess this meeting until after votes. How many
    votes do we have? There are three votes so I would like to take
    a half hour break. Then we are going to come back for the
    second panel. We will take testimony from those who are here to
    talk about their experiences.
        I want to thank the representatives of the FDA and the USDA
    for being here. We look forward to working with you on these
    issues so that we can help consumers across America have more
    confidence in the safety of our leafy greens packaged foods.
    Thank you very much.
        The committee stands in recess for a half hour. We are
    going to vote.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Before we begin, I just want to acknowledge
    the work of our staff on both sides who have helped with this
    hearing. We appreciate your work. I want to make it known that
    one of our staffers, Charity Tillemann-Dick, who has done a lot
    of work on this could not be here today because of an illness.
    We look forward to her return. But she did a lot of great
    research and I just want to acknowledge that for the record,
    actually. Thank you.
        We are going to go to our second panel of witnesses. I
    would like to introduce them. We will start with Ms. Kelly
    Cobb. Welcome, Ms. Cobb. Kelly Cobb is a survivor of E. coli
    poisoning and has come here today to share her story with us.
    Her husband, Matt Cobb, serves in the U.S. Marines. They are
    parents of two young children.
        Mr. Scott Horsfall is the chief executive officer of the
    California Leafy Greens Marketing Board. Mr. Horsfall has
    served as chairman of the U.S. Agricultural Export Development
    Council, was a member of the Agricultural Trade Advisory
    Committee for Fruits and Vegetables, and is past chairman of
    the Produce Marketing Association's International Trade
    Conference. Welcome, Mr. Horsfall.
        Mr. Dale Coke, welcome. Mr. Coke is a farmer and a member
    of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Mr. Coke is also
    the founder and President of Coke Farm, a produce cooling,
    storage, and shipping company located in San Juan Bautista, CA
    that represents local California organic growers in selling
    throughout the United States and Canada. He is also a partner
    in Jardines, a diversified organic farming operation growing on
    approximately 500 acres in Monterrey and San Benito, CA
    counties. The sixth generation of his family born in California
    to work in agriculture, he pioneered spring mix lettuce and was
    instrumental in developing its market.
        Ms. Caroline Smith DeWaal, welcome. Ms. DeWaal is the
    director of Food Science at the Center for Science in the
    Public Interest where she is a leading consumer analyst on
    reform of laws and regulations governing food safety. Since
    1999 she has maintained and annually published a list of food-
    borne illness outbreaks organized by food source that now
    contains over 15 years of outbreak reports. She has presented
    at numerous conferences. She is a co-author of the book, Is Our
    Food Safe: A Consumer's Guide to Protecting Your Health and the
    Environment and has authored numerous papers on food safety.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their presence here
    today. It is the policy of our Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform to swear in all witnesses before they
    testify. I would ask that you rise and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect
    that each of the witnesses has answered in the affirmative.
        As with panel one, I ask that each witness give an oral
    summary of his or her testimony. I would like to see you keep
    that summary a maximum of 5 minutes in duration. Any testimony
    that you want to add beyond that and your entire statement will
    be in the record. Anything you want to send to this committee
    within a few days will be included the record as well. Your
    complete written statement will be in the record.
        Ms. Cobb, welcome. I would like you to be our first
    witness. Would you please begin?

    STATEMENTS OF KELLY COBB, SURVIVOR OF E. COLI POISONING; SCOTT
      HORSFALL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CALIFORNIA LEAFY GREENS
       MARKETING BOARD; DALE COKE, FARMER AND MEMBER, COMMUNITY
       ALLIANCE WITH FAMILY FARMERS; AND CAROLINE SMITH DEWAAL,
      DIRECTOR OF FOOD SCIENCE, CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC
                                INTEREST

                        STATEMENT OF KELLY COBB

        Ms. Cobb. In May 2008, I was busy as a stay at home mom
    raising my two children, Liberty, who is three, and Matthew,
    who was one at the time. We were in Washington visiting family
    from California. We were there without my husband because he
    was serving as a Marine in Iraq for the second time.
        On May 10th, my mom invited me to go to a banquet dinner
    with her and some of her friends. Little did I know, by
    accepting her invitation I would be changing my life forever.
    That night I ate a salad that was contaminated with E. coli. My
    mom, my children, and her friends who were there with us
    happened to sit at the same table. I just happened to pick the
    seat that was contaminated. My children were there with us. My
    son was on my lap but luckily he didn't eat greens at the time.
        On May 15th, I was getting ready for our drive back to
    California. I went to bed that night with a stomach ache and
    woke up on May 16th with diarrhea and most painful stomach
    cramps that occurred every 10 minutes. My stool turned to blood
    at about 5.
        I then proceeded to go to the ER where they just said that
    I had a bacterial infection. I went home and was unable to hold
    down water or the medicine that they gave me so I returned to
    the hospital. Two days later I was told that I had E. coli and
    that was the cause of the illness, not what they had thought. I
    was discharged from the hospital only to return a couple of
    days later because I had developed a condition of HUS.
        I was told at that time that my kidneys were only
    functioning at 50 percent. I was then started on plasmapheresis
    where they cycled out my blood and put in the new stuff. Over
    the time that I was in the hospital, I had over 50 blood draws,
    two ultrasounds, a CAT scan, a colonoscopy, seven IVs, a
    central line in my neck, four units of whole blood, and 80
    units of plasma.
        Both my husband and my father were in Iraq at the time. I
    had to send a Red Cross message to my husband to let him know
    what was going on. He was unable to come home. I had the kids.
    I was the only caretaker with him being gone so my mom took
    over that responsibility and set up child care for them while
    she was at work. They came to see me at the hospital every day
    but they did not understand why I wasn't able to go home with
    them or why they couldn't stay with me. They were so young that
    they didn't understand what was going on.
        There were several times that I didn't think I was going to
    make it because of how sick I was. I remember on 1 day, I think
    it was the 28th, I had an allergic reaction to some pain
    medication that I was given and I got intense chest pain. I
    remember blacking out and not really knowing what was going on.
    I honestly thought I was going to die right there on the
    hospital bed while my husband and father were in Iraq and the
    kids were at home. I thought I wouldn't be there with them
    anymore.
        With that, I was unable to really focus on what the nurses
    were telling me. They gave me another medication to help with
    the reaction.
        From that incident, from the E. coli I no longer eat any
    produce that I can't see being washed myself. I have gone to
    restaurants and asked them how they prepare their salads. I
    clean everything from a bag of lettuce to a watermelon because
    when you cut through it, it is going to hit your fruit.
        The time I have with my family means so much more to me now
    because I know that at any time it can be taken away from me. I
    am honestly surprised with how sick I got that I am here today.
        If anything, I would want the parties at fault in my
    particular case to know that they took me away from my kids for
    2 weeks. That is time that they will never get back. My son was
    one. He developed every day that I was gone. He came to the
    hospital saying new words every day and doing new things.
        I can't describe to you the pain that I was in because I
    don't have a comparison that I could give to you. I would
    rather break bones than go through that. I would rather have a
    broken arm right now than go through the pain that I felt from
    the E. coli. I don't have a comparison to actually give to you
    on what I felt.
        It could be their family. It could just as easily have been
    one of my kids. Had it been, it would have been devastating to
    them what I went through.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cobb follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.033

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much for coming here to
    testify. We are certainly going to be having some questions of
    you when we go to that phase of this hearing.
        At this point, I would like to ask Mr. Horsfall to proceed
    for 5 minutes. Thank you very much.
        Before you proceed, I want to welcome some of our visitors
    here from China, Macau. Thank you for being here.
        Please proceed.

                      STATEMENT OF SCOTT HORSFALL

        Mr. Horsfall. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich
    and Ranking Member Jordan. I am happy to be here. I am always
    happy to talk about our program.
        I will get to my statement but I would express to Ms. Cobb
    that what she went through does not fall on deaf ears in our
    industry. Shortly after I started this job, USA Today ran a
    recap. It was a year after the original outbreak. They
    presented the stories of the four or five people who had died
    because they ate spinach. I know, because I work with this
    industry, that they take that to heart. They are trying to do
    everything they can do so that there aren't more victims and so
    that we can reduce that risk as much as possible.
        The Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement was established in
    2007. It is a mechanism, quite simply, for verifying through
    mandatory government audits that farmers of leafy greens follow
    a rigorous set of food safety standards. We are an
    instrumentality of the State of California and we operate with
    oversight from the California Department of Food and
    Agriculture.
        Although the leafy greens industry had always prioritized
    food safety, in the aftermath of that outbreak in 2006,
    farmers, shippers, and processors recognized that more effort
    was needed to protect public health. The question was how to do
    it. A lot of different approaches were looked at, including
    regulation at both the State and national levels, marketing
    orders, and a marketing agreement. The decision was ultimately
    made to go with the tool that was most readily available, which
    was a marketing agreement.
        It is a voluntary organization but it does have the force
    of government behind it. Our members, when they do join, it is
    mandatory that they follow the rules of the program. It also
    has the flexibility to change and amend the program as we get
    new research.
        You have talked about research a lot already this
    afternoon. We are keenly interested in research that is being
    done so that we can make the program better. That flexibility
    is actually one of the key benefits of the LGMA structure.
        Our program is focused on preventing the introduction of
    pathogens into leafy greens fields and farms. We applaud the
    Obama administration and the President's Food Safety Working
    Group for their focus on prevention in their approach to
    improving food safety. On July 7th in their press conference we
    were happy to hear Vice President Biden and Health and Human
    Services Secretary Sebelius talk about prevention as job No. 1.
        I was asked to talk about where our metrics came from. As
    the LGMA was being developed, there was a parallel effort to
    create a set of food safety practices and standards, sometimes
    referred to as good agriculture practices or metrics. They were
    developed by university industry scientists as well as other
    food safety experts, farmers, and shippers. Those standards
    were reviewed by FDA, the USDA, and other State and Federal
    health agencies. They cover the major risk areas that have been
    identified by FDA and other food safety experts.
        Practices include careful attention to site selection for
    growing fields based on farm history and proximity to animal
    operations, appropriate standards for irrigation water and
    other sources of water, prohibition of raw manure and the use
    of only certified safe fertilizers, and of course good employee
    hygiene in fields and harvesting.
        Our members are subject to mandatory audits by the
    California Department of Food and Agriculture to ensure that
    they are in compliance with the program. Those auditors are
    USDA trained and the process that we use is a USDA certified
    audit process. Our members face penalties if they are not in
    compliance up to and including decertification from the
    program, which can lead to serious and significant
    repercussions for the company. From July 23, 2007 when we first
    began our auditing, we have done over 1,000 government audits
    of our members. Those continue today even as we speak.
        We all know that maintaining food safety vigilance is
    crucial to the future of the produce industry. While there is
    still very much to do--and we are not done--I believe that the
    leafy greens industry is doing more to provide a safe,
    wholesome, and delicious product now than they ever have
    before.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Horsfall follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.037

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Horsfall. Mr. Coke,
    you may proceed for 5 minutes. Thank you.

                         STATEMENT OF DALE COKE

        Mr. Coke. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich and Ranking
    Member Jordan. Thank you for inviting me here today.
        I have been asked to address the impacts of the California
    Leafy Greens metrics on farming practices. For growers in
    California, it is estimated that the economic impacts are on
    the order of about $18,000 per year on average per farm. That
    will be higher for larger farms and possibly less for smaller
    farms.
        Growers have to, of course, do testing of water,
    fertilizer, soil amendments, and anything else that goes onto
    the crop. They have to document all of this. They have to be
    aware of animal incursions, pay attention to vegetation, and
    then also provide some kind of traceability.
        Traceability is not such an issue for a grower like
    ourselves. Organic growers have had to be able to trace a
    product for years. There have also been prohibitions against
    manure use for organic production for years. For compost, there
    is no sewage sludge or other kinds of toxic chemicals used.
        But organic growers are facing significant issues with the
    push by regulators to ban wildlife and non-crop vegetation like
    wind breaks and habitat, which are things that are supposed to
    be encouraged by organic laws that pertain to maintaining your
    certification.
        Environmental impacts often vary depending on the inspector
    and his interpretation of the metrics. There are certain
    companies that use their own metrics, which are called super-
    metrics in the industry. Wildlife, non-crop vegetation, and
    water bodies are normally viewed as food safety risks. A lot of
    environmentally positive projects have been abandoned by
    growers who have been threatened with the loss of the ability
    to sell their crops.
        Wind breaks, vegetative filter strips, tail water reuse
    reservoirs, grass roadways, and vegetative ditches have been
    removed to comply with the inspectors when they come out to
    check on the crop. Many fields have deer and pig fencing. Some
    also have frog and rodent fencing even though those haven't
    been found to be vectors of pathogens. Some of the fields for
    leafy greens use poison traps for rodents. Secondary poisoning
    of raptors and owls can occur with this.
        A lot of these practices are more based on the processor's
    having problems pulling them out of the harvested crop because
    of the nature of the harvest of the crop than it has to do with
    being a food safety issue.
        Practically, this has been a big step backward from
    environmental protection. It was just starting to move forward
    on farms.
        There is a lot more money and time that farmers have to
    spend trying to comply with these metrics and document this.
    The majority of the food disease-related outbreaks that are
    associated with leafy greens come from pre-cut processed
    products. There is some kind of failure during that process to
    make it ready to eat or to make it clean enough that you don't
    have the pathogens.
        Salad processors tend to point to the fields as being the
    issue. It is very difficult for farmers to grow sterile crop in
    a open field. We have always had employee hygiene. We are
    concerned about our compost and we don't use manure. We test
    our water and our fertilizer, as many farmers do just to make
    sure that we are not part of the problem.
        Leafy greens farmers are now in the unenviable position of
    having to pay for and comply with a roster of unproven safety
    metrics in attempting to grow pathogen-free crops and being
    held potentially liable for it.
        The California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement has made
    steps in the right direction, I think, for the processed
    product that it should be representing. I don't know that
    marketing agreements are an appropriate way to provide food
    safety, whether they be State or national. In my mind they are
    something that focuses on marketing products rather than on the
    actual conditions of growing products.
        This being said, if this were to be moved in that direction
    and if the focus was just on processed food, you would reduce a
    lot of impact. There are a lot of farmers that don't grow leafy
    greens that go into bags. If the focus was just on the
    processed arena, you could exempt them.
        I was there when they started having the meetings to decide
    about leafy greens in California. They included specific
    vegetables. I asked why they were just including a few
    vegetables. There was no answer because they didn't
    differentiate whether it was a whole head or a bunched product.
    It was just they are going to include these vegetables.
        The only reason I can come up with is that it is something
    to enhance their competitive edge. It gives them a marketing
    advantage if you need to adhere to these metrics. You kind of
    raise the bar and a lot of farmers might not be able to make
    that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Coke follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.042

        Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank the gentleman for his
    testimony. Your entire statement will be included in the
    record. As someone who has been so involved in the development
    of this industry, we appreciate your presence here.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Smith DeWaal for 5 minutes. After
    your testimony, we are going to go to a round of questions of
    the panel. You may proceed.

                   STATEMENT OF CAROLINE SMITH DEWAAL

        Ms. DeWaal. Thank you very much, Chairman Kucinich and also
    Representative Jordan. My name is Caroline Smith DeWaal. I
    direct the Food Safety Project for the Center for Science in
    the Public Interest.
        CSPI has concerns about the increasing use of marketing
    orders as a vehicle for regulating safety. Fifteen different
    agencies administer 30 different laws that regulate food safety
    in the United States today. Marketing orders really represent a
    further fractioning of this already widely fractured system.
        Food-borne illness outbreaks linked to fresh produce are
    among the major public health problems when it comes to food
    safety. Leafy greens and salads are among the top food
    categories along with beef, poultry, and seafood that cause
    both outbreaks and illnesses. In addition, the average size of
    outbreaks linked to produce tends to be larger so they tend to
    affect more people.
        The importance of robust and reliable food safety practices
    on the farm cannot be understated. Leafy greens, once
    contaminated, can support, grow, and spread pathogens until
    they are consumed. Chlorination and other post-harvest controls
    can help reduce crops' contamination between different lots of
    salad, for example, but they don't make contaminated product,
    product that comes in from the farm contaminated, truly safe to
    eat. In fact, scientists have shown how bacteria can inhabit
    the washing systems used for bagged lettuce and transfer
    bacteria from a contaminated lot really onto a full day's
    production of salads.
        While FDA has jurisdiction over on farm food safety, it
    really has not acted as an effective regulator. They have been
    using for at least the past 10 to 15 years the concept of
    guidance, unenforceable guidance, to the industry instead of
    regulation. But the absence of enforceable rules leaves a
    significant hole in the fabric of food safety, allowing and
    even encouraging the industry to weave standards of its own
    design.
        The Agricultural Marketing Service has served as a friendly
    regulator of choice when food safety problems arise. At AMS,
    the food industry can draft their own rules, called marketing
    orders or agreements, to best suit their needs. But AMS is not
    equipped to monitor the safety of food. The primary focus of
    AMS is with the promotion of food products.
        The mechanisms that it uses are limited in terms of their
    geographic scope and often they are completely voluntary. These
    are voluntary systems. Farmers have to agree and the handlers
    have to agree to comply. They are limited to U.S. companies and
    sometimes they are limited to companies just in the State of
    California. This is particularly troubling when you consider
    that 13 percent of our diet is from imported produce. So a huge
    amount of produce is never going to be subject to these
    marketing orders.
        AMS oversees marketing orders for 22 different commodities
    including things like almonds and shell eggs. These programs
    can really instill a false sense of security both for the
    industries involved and for the consumers because they really
    are quality programs. They are not based on safety. But given
    the absence of rulemaking at FDA, it is not really surprising
    that in the aftermath of the 2006 spinach outbreak the leafy
    greens industry turned to AMS to create these stronger rules.
        I just want to note that these standards really do create
    uncertainty. They give rise to the private standards which are
    actually the complaint of many of the growers today. The
    growers today are saying that these standards are too
    burdensome. But let me be clear: These aren't mandatory
    standards. They are not FDA standards. They don't apply to
    imports.
        It is critically important that we actually get a system in
    place that will protect the public. The Food Safety Enhancement
    Act, which is before the House of Representatives, addresses
    this issue head on. It requires FDA to consider both food
    safety and environmental impacts when promulgating regulations
    for food production. It requires the standards to take into
    account small scale and diversified farming, wildlife habitat,
    conservation practices, watershed protection, and organic
    production methods. This is all in the legislation that is
    before the House.
        This provides an appropriate focus on public safety. It
    gives the farmers and consumers both an opportunity to weigh in
    on these standards, which we don't have today with the AMS
    standards. It would protect the sustainable and organic farming
    communities that we all value. These are the type of standards
    that consumers cannot live without.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. DeWaal follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.052

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
        By the way, I just have an update. The bill that was voted
    on did not receive the required two-thirds so it will end up
    going back for some work. Some of the concerns that were
    expressed by Members who voted against it were about the effect
    of the bill on small farmers and organic farmers. So I think
    that the Center, which endorsed the bill, needs to take heed of
    the concerns that are expressed. If we do that, perhaps when
    the bill comes back out to the floor we can see it pass. Thank
    you.
        Well, that means we will each have 5 minutes for questions.
    That really does mean that we should move this along.
        I just want to thank Ms. Cobb. How are you feeling, by the
    way?
        Ms. Cobb. I am fine now.
        Mr. Kucinich. How many years ago was this?
        Ms. Cobb. It was May 2008.
        Mr. Kucinich. Have you felt any after-effects other than
    the fact that you are really not keen on eating certain
    products?
        Ms. Cobb. Other than at home. No. I am at a higher risk of
    cardiovascular disease later in life and urinary tract types of
    issues but as of right now I have had none of that since that
    same summer.
        Mr. Kucinich. We are glad you are here.
        Ms. Cobb. Thank you.
        Mr. Kucinich. I think there needs to be a public face of
    somebody who has dealt with this. You have dealt with it. It
    takes a lot of courage to come before a congressional committee
    to relate your experience. We appreciate that you are here.
        Ms. Cobb. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Kucinich. The other thing I want to note is that when
    Mr. Horsfall began his statement, I was impressed that you said
    Ms. Cobb's testimony doesn't fall on deaf ears. What I saw was
    a real, unrehearsed response to hearing what you had to say. I
    just want you to know that I appreciate that. Sometimes people
    come in here with a story that can be very difficult and the
    individuals who may have some responsibility in that area
    generally seem to be impassive about it. You showed some
    concern. I think that speaks well.
        I would like you to address the concern about some of
    CALGMA's metrics and the arbitrariness of them. Your auditor
    must find that the adjacent land to a field of greens be free
    from compost operations within 400 feet of the crop edge while
    it only requires that the adjacent land be free from the
    grazing of domestic animals within 30 feet of the crop edge.
    What is the justification for allowing domestic animals, the
    animal waste products of which are a component of compost, to
    be closer to the crop edge than a compost operation?
        Mr. Horsfall. The LGMA program metrics are based entirely
    on risk assessments. I think that is in keeping with FDA
    guidance. The compost operations are considered to be a very
    high risk situation in terms of pathogens. We also have
    significant buffer zones if there is a confined animal feeding
    operation where you have a large number of animals of risk in a
    field.
        Mr. Kucinich. Remember, you have domestic animals closer to
    the crop edge than the compost operation.
        Mr. Horsfall. Because the risk assessment tells us that
    there is a lower risk involved if you have a couple of animals
    on a farm.
        Mr. Kucinich. But let us look at the 2006 spinach incident.
    Isn't it true that the field identified as the source of
    contaminated spinach was less than a couple hundred feet from
    where domestic animals graze and shade themselves?
        Mr. Horsfall. I don't know that for sure.
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, let us check it out and see. Maybe you
    could look at that. Maybe you could come to some kind of a
    conclusion if there is any contradiction there.
        Isn't true that CALGMA's auditors would not today find any
    problem with growing spinach intended for the ready to eat
    market growing a couple hundred feet from the land where cattle
    graze, exactly the conditions present in the 2006 spinach
    incident?
        Mr. Horsfall. It would depend on the number of cattle that
    were there. I don't have those numbers in front of me. But in
    that particular case, as I recall, the feces that were found
    that had the same fingerprint were over a mile away.
        Mr. Kucinich. Should CALGMA be tougher on the processors
    who make the bagged lettuce than it currently is?
        Mr. Horsfall. I think processors, if I could address that,
    processors are under the jurisdiction of FDA. They are already
    inspected.
        Mr. Kucinich. What about CALGMA? We are looking at a
    possible nationalization of this. Should CALGMA be tougher on
    these processors? You have heard testimony here. What do you
    think?
        Mr. Horsfall. I think the processors need to be regulated
    just as heavily as growers do. That regulation, I believe, is
    in place through FDA.
        Mr. Kucinich. I appreciate that.
        I just want to ask one more question here. Mr. Coke, you
    are the father of the spring mix. Spring mix helped pre-cut
    packaged leafy greens become a vegetable consumers like and eat
    in increasing portions. It has made a significant health
    contribution. But you are also a critic of the ready to eat
    leafy greens industry.
        In your opinion, is there a way for the American public to
    get the convenience and health benefits of pre-cut packaged
    vegetables without the harm to farmers you mentioned in your
    testimony?
        Mr. Coke. Just as a point of clarification, I developed the
    concept of spring mix but I never put it in bags and it was
    never ready to eat. It was a field run product. It was washed,
    cooled, dried, and packed into three pound boxes.
        I always had serious reservations about how that product
    was displayed. I didn't ever want to go into----
        Mr. Kucinich. What would be the long term results, Mr.
    Coke, in your opinion, on the environment if CALGMA is
    nationalized in its current form?
        Mr. Coke. In its current form, I think it will affect too
    many growers of lettuce and cabbage and kale and chard, the
    things that are traditionally harvested as whole heads or
    bunched items. They don't make a differentiation between them.
    Those things haven't had any outbreaks associated with them.
    They often have a kill step associated because people heat them
    up before they eat them. They steam them or boil them.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
        I have some followup questions to Ms. Smith DeWaal. We are
    going to put them in writing.
        I am going to go now to Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief as
    well since we have a vote pending.
        Let me, too, thank Ms. Cobb for being here. How are the
    little ones doing? Are they doing fine?
        Ms. Cobb. Oh, yes. Matthew doesn't remember because he was
    too young. Liberty still remembers and will talk about when I
    got sick from a salad. She know what it was from. For a while
    she would tell people not to be afraid of a blood machine
    because she remembers coming in while I was having a
    transfusion done. But overall they are doing well.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, let me also thank your family for their
    service to our country. Thank you all for being with us now.
    Let me just get a couple basic facts. What is your home State,
    Ms. Cobb?
        Ms. Cobb. My home State is Washington.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Horsfall, the program is completely
    voluntary. Is that right? I think this came off your Web site
    for LGMA. There are 120 handlers for 99 percent of the volume
    of California leafy greens. They are all voluntary? That was
    120 who joined?
        Mr. Horsfall. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. What is the assessment? How is that determined
    again?
        Mr. Horsfall. We assess our members based on the volume
    that they ship. It is a penny and a half per 24-count
    equivalent box.
        Mr. Jordan. I just want to be clear, are big producers part
    of it? In other words, are the farmers part of the organization
    or is it just the folks who take the farm product and then
    package it?
        Mr. Horsfall. Our members are handlers. They are the people
    who put products into commerce. The majority of them are
    growers as well.
        Mr. Jordan. They are both?
        Mr. Horsfall. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. So some are both. Some actually produce the
    product and handle it?
        Mr. Horsfall. Absolutely.
        Mr. Jordan. From the field right to their operation or it
    could be around the same premises?
        Mr. Horsfall. Yes, and they sell to each other as well in
    the industry quite a bit.
        Mr. Jordan. Since you have come into existence, which was
    2006 or 2007--what year was it?
        Mr. Horsfall. It was 2007.
        Mr. Jordan. Have there been any outbreaks of E. coli or any
    problems?
        Mr. Horsfall. There have been outbreaks that have been
    reported. I don't believe that the health authorities have
    conclusively finished their investigations yet to say where the
    product got contaminated. But there was a small outbreak in
    Washington State that Ms. Cobb was affected by. Last year there
    was an outbreak in Michigan.
        Mr. Jordan. So can you definitively say that we have seen
    an improvement in that there have been less problems since your
    organization has been formed or is that anyone's guess?
        Mr. Horsfall. The answer is yes, fewer people have gotten
    sick tied to lettuce and leafy greens in the last 2 years than,
    say, in the 2 or 3 years before that. But I don't take that as
    a metric. I think if anybody is getting sick, then we still
    have to figure out how to make the program better. That is
    where the research comes in.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Coke, you are a farmer and a handler. Are
    you part of this organization, your farm and your operation?
        Mr. Coke. I am not. I have two different entities. One is a
    sales, shipping, and cooling company. The other is a farming
    company. The farming company contracts with a handler that is
    signatory to that. We grow some crops, cilantro, dill, and
    parsley in this case, for inclusion in the salad that they want
    to be grown under those metrics. So we do that part. Otherwise
    we have a diverse crop mix. There are only a few things that
    would be considered leafy greens.
        I have resisted. I think the principle of this agreement is
    wrong so I didn't want to. It has cost me the ability to sell
    into Canada because they won't accept product, even though we
    are organic and we test the soil and water. They won't accept
    product if you are not signatory to the Leafy Greens Marketing
    Agreement. I don't know. I would prefer not to go there, to
    have to. I was hoping that something would become a little more
    logical and you would focus on the process part.
        Mr. Jordan. This is a country boy from western Ohio who
    didn't grow up on a farm but we live out in the middle of my
    wife's family farm. You think about when the product is grown
    close to a composting site or whatever, but I can remember when
    they used to spread manure on the field. It seems to me that
    the problem has to be after the product is taken out of the
    field. That is just common sense. But maybe I am just a country
    boy.
        Mr. Coke. I think you are right. The product has issues.
    The slide that you showed about the bagged produce. It is a
    great concept to give people something that is ready to eat but
    it is a perfect incubator. How do you keep that? If you can't
    sterilize it, if you have any little pathogen and you break the
    cold chain, even the customer just taking it out to their car
    and then driving home, potentially it is a hazard. It is a
    difficult issue to get a product to market safely, I think.
        Mr. Jordan. We have to vote. Thank you all for coming. I am
    sorry we didn't get a chance.
        Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank Mr. Jordan. I want to thank
    the witnesses for being here.
        I am Dennis Kucinich, Chairman of the Domestic Policy
    Subcommittee. Mr. Jordan is the ranking member. Our hearing
    today has been Ready-to-Eat or Not?: Examining the Impact of
    Leafy Greens Marketing Agreements. We have had two panels. The
    testimony has been very important. We appreciate your
    participation.
        This committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.053

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.054

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.055

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.056

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.057

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.058

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.059

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.060

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.061

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.062

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.063

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.067

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.068

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.069

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.070

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.071

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.072

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.073

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.074

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.075

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.076

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.077

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.078

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.079

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.080

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.081

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4914.082