Hi, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart. In the recording that follows, Gary Fleming mentions that the Produce Traceability Initiative will track three pieces of information about each case of produce through the supply chain. After this recording was made, the PTI amended its plans, and decided that only two pieces of information were needed: the GTIN, and a lot number. As you listen to this, keep that in mind. You can find more information at www.producetraceability.org.

Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart and welcome back to PMA’s audio series, “Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker.” Joining us today is PMA Vice President for Technology and Standards, Gary Fleming. In fact, Gary will be joining us for the next several recordings, so that we can talk in depth about the Produce Traceability Initiative and its work to bring chain-wide, electronic traceability to the produce industry. Gary, thank you for being here.

Before I ask you to talk about the initiative’s work, let’s talk about the industry’s current traceability capability. Everyone should already be able to trace product one step forward, and one step back, on paper – that was required by a bioterrorism law in 2002. Gary, please tell our listeners why being able to trace product on paper isn’t good enough, why we need to do more.

Gary Fleming:

Thanks, Julia, and hello to our listeners.

You’re right, most in our industry already have basic traceability capability. As you noted, the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 requires every food company to be able to trace its products back one step, and forward one step. Everyone in our industry should be able to do this right now. And if you can’t, then you should know that you can be brought up on federal charges for failing to comply with the bioterrorism act.

However, recent foodborne illness outbreaks have demonstrated that we need to be able to do better. We should want to do better first and foremost to better protect public health, to prevent further illness and potentially to even save lives – but doing it better can also help limit our losses in the event product does have to be recalled.

You know, there was some talk during the recent Salmonella saintpaul foodborne illness outbreak that the federal government’s investigation was slowed down because the produce industry couldn’t trace back its product. That’s not entirely true, for the most part we could trace back product. (And I’m sure the folks who couldn’t will be dealt with accordingly by federal investigators.)

Part of the problem was that the investigation was looking for the wrong product – but part of the problem was also that our industry members gave federal investigators a hodge podge of records they had to sift through to try to find a trail. They gave them paper records – that required investigators to sift through thousands of pages. And every company’s record keeping system was different, tracking different pieces of information, which added yet another level of complexity for the investigators. Right now, every member of the produce industry has their own, individual proprietary solution for tracing product one step forward, one step back. The information stored and method used can vary company by company. Multiply that times all the different companies that, say, handle tomatoes or even peppers, and you can imagine how difficult a job an investigative team would have.

When lives – and livelihoods – may be at stake, that simply isn’t good enough. Consumers demand better, and regulators and legislators are demanding better. Keeping those records electronically can certainly help speed investigators’ traceback – and keeping records electronically that have common elements of information in them will speed it even more. Our industry has a lot at stake, it is in our best interests to take our traceability capability to the next level – or we may end up being required to do it by people who don’t understand our business.

The Produce Traceability Initiative was founded in 2007 to bring some commonality to these systems – to weave through that common thread, if you will, by requiring three pieces of common information to follow every carton of produce through the supply chain. But I’ll stop there, because I understand we are going to talk more about those three pieces of information next time.

Julia:

Thank you, Gary, for that explanation of why our industry needs to take traceability to the next level – to chain-wide traceability, and electronic traceability. To find out more about PMA’s and the Produce Traceability Initiative’s work, visit PMA’s Web site at www.pma.com. Go to the “Member Resources” section, then to Technology and Standards, then to Traceability. (For those of you reading this transcript, the link is: http://www.pma.com/cig/tech/traceability.cfm.)

To our listeners, please join us next time, when I will talk to Gary about the solution that the Produce Traceability Initiative has developed to help us achieve that vision of chain-wide, electronic traceability – and where our listeners can get help to achieve their part. Until next time…!

Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart and welcome back to PMA’s audio series, “Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker.” With us today is Kathy Means, PMA vice president of government relations and public affairs. Thanks for speaking with us today. Kathy, as we record this, the industry is still in the grips of a large Salmonella saintpaul foodborne illness outbreak linked to fresh produce items including first certain types of tomatoes and then later certain types of hot peppers. This outbreak is getting daily headlines, and is taking its toll on consumer confidence. PMA consumer research indicates that virtually every consumer knows about this latest food safety problem involving produce, and that their confidence in produce food safety has sagged yet again. Can you talk with me about what PMA is doing to talk to consumers about food safety, and to educate them about what their role is in safeguarding the foods they buy and eat?

Kathy Means:

Thanks, Julia.

You’re right, consumers are the final link in the produce distribution chain, and they do have a role to play in food safety. Of course, the first responsibility for safety lies with our industry, and government has a role to play, too. Yet we cannot forget that consumers need to know how to best handle our nutritious, delicious products as well.

Eleven years ago, PMA and other food associations recognized that consumers need consistent, credible, accurate information about safe food handling – for all foods. For this reason, we are a founding member of the Partnership for Food Safety Education, which seeks to teach consumers how to handle food safely. The partnership is a public-private nonprofit effort that includes industry, government agencies and consumer groups. Its four core messages of clean, separate, cook and chill offer simple, actionable, effective guidance to consumers of all ages. These reach consumers through both the “Fight BAC!” campaign and the “Be Food Safe” campaign. PMA contributes financial and human resources to the partnership. In fact, PMA President Bryan Silbermann serves as the chairman of the partnership.

Beyond financial and staff support for the partnership, PMA also has funded development of produce-specific consumer guidance. These science-based, consumer-tested messages are free for anyone to use. They advise consumers to make sure the produce they buy is not damaged, and that fresh-cut items are chilled. They cover how to wash hands, and how to wash produce – and in case you’re wondering, our advice to consumers is to wash produce under running water, don’t use bleach or detergent. The guidance stresses avoiding cross-contamination, and advises cooking produce that may have become contaminated by raw meat or raw meat juices. And they explain when to refrigerate items and when to throw them out.

Some companies have told me they’re concerned about talking about safety out of fear that it might raise consumer concerns. As I mentioned, these messages are consumer tested, and have been shown to reassure and empower consumers.

The partnership has downloadable “Fight BAC!” brochures that companies can customize with their logo to use in their own consumer outreach programs. Or companies can link to Web-based information. “Fight BAC!” is a free resource that demonstrates a company’s concern for consumer safety.

Speaking of resources, PMA members also have access to another free resource through the partnership. Its “Be Food Safe” campaign has been developed specifically for, and with input of, leading retailers and suppliers. It is designed to remind consumers about important safe food handling practices at the places where they shop for food. PMA members interested in promoting these preventive health messages can enjoy a free license to use the “Be Food Safe” materials if they sign up by the end of October 2008. Our members do not have to pay the licensing fee because PMA has already contributed to this campaign on behalf of its members.

Consumers deserve a safe, healthful delicious produce experience, every bite, every time. One piece of that experience is empowering them to handle produce well through easy, effective education. These resources are available on PMA’s food safety page – in the Issues section of www.pma.com. Take advantage of them today. They’ll enhance your company’s reputation by showing your commitment to food safety. And you’ll be helping us spread the word about safe produce handling.

Julia:

Thank you, Kathy. As our nation struggles with obesity and all the related chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease – even among our children! – this is not a time we want consumers to be discouraged from eating the very foods they should be eating more of for their better health: fruits and vegetables. It’s good to know that there are tested tools to help us talk to consumers about food safety in a way that encourages and empowers them. Thanks to our listeners for joining us, goodbye for now.

Hello, this is PMA PR Director Julia Stewart and welcome back to PMA’s audio series, “Ask Dr. Bob Whitaker.” With us today is Kathy Means, PMA vice president of government relations and public affairs. Thanks for speaking with us today. Kathy, as we record this, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just lifted the advisory against certain types of tomatoes as that agency continues its investigation of the source of a large Salmonella saintpaul foodborne illness outbreak. Does that mean we are off the hook this time?

Kathy Means:

Thanks, Julia. You’re right – FDA has lifted the advisory against tomatoes, but no, that is not the end of the story. This investigation still is not complete, and no matter what, our industry and the government still have a lot of work to do.

The responsibility for producing safe produce rests first with our industry. And meeting that responsibility requires that each company must embody a food safety culture, and must have a robust food safety program in use every day. Otherwise they should not be in this business. Beyond the industry, however, the U.S. government also has a role in produce safety.

After the large foodborne illness outbreak linked to fresh spinach in 2006, we said we were just one outbreak away from legislation and regulation for produce safety. Well, here we are. We can expect both the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to move forward to both legislate and regulate our industry – in fact, we are already hearing the drumbeats from Capitol Hill and the agency.

More than a year ago, PMA called for mandatory produce safety rules, to ensure that everyone operates on a level playing field, and to boost consumer and government confidence in our industry and the healthful products we market.

We said we wanted mandatory good agricultural practices – GAPs – that apply to products grown in the United States and those imported into the United States. Those GAPs need to be commodity-specific, because we know that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to produce safety. They also need to accommodate different regional risks.

Speaking of risks, we also believe those regulations need to be risk-based. FDA has identified those produce items most likely to be associated with a foodborne illness outbreak – melons, tomatoes, leafy greens, herbs and green onions – so let’s start there. That will enhance produce safety and build consumer confidence.

Not only should these rules be risk-based, they also must be science-based. Guessing at good agricultural practices doesn’t do anything to improve safety, and it would add unnecessary costs and increase prices for consumers. That’s just foolish. We must call on the best and most-reliable science and experts to guide development of these rules.

We also believe FDA should have mandatory recall authority. FDA is the produce industry’s safety agency, and if a company refuses to work with FDA when it requests a voluntary recall, then the agency should have the option of mandating a recall.

FDA also needs adequate funding to carry out its responsibilities related to produce safety, and PMA supports efforts to ensure the agency has sufficient resources.

We believe FDA is the end point for fresh produce safety, yet we recognize that there may be intermediate steps toward these science-based, risk-based, commodity-specific rules. These could be state or other efforts. Ultimately, though, the responsibility for government oversight of produce safety rests with FDA.

As I mentioned, both government and industry have work ahead on safety. Each of us must understand how we can improve so that when the next outbreak occurs – and it will – the investigation and resolution will result in less impact on consumer health and confidence and less impact on the industry. Public health officials at FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must sit down with industry so we can talk about what got in the way in this investigation, on both sides, and how we can help each other better the next time.

You can expect PMA to be at the table representing our members’ interests and working with our members continually to improve industry safety practices.

Julia:

So our industry now finds itself in a very different environment than we were in before the leafy greens outbreak of 2006. Some very important stakeholders in Congress and at FDA have simply had enough. Thank you, Kathy.

And thanks to our listeners for joining us. Please join us next time, when we will talk about the impact of food safety crises on another very important group of stakeholders – our consumers. Goodbye for now.