The POP Campaign

THE MILLION MOMS4POP PLEDGE FOR HEALTHY FOODS AND CHOICES  *Note: We will have an online version soon – please let us know if you sign this pledge.)

POP Campaign (Preserve Organic Power)• MOMS4POP, Hippocrates Health Institute  – Green Your SPIRIT • Sprout Foundation

This POP Campaign pledge for Moms and Heads of Households is a blueprint for action in Preserving healthy food and supplements and the right to choose.

AS A MOM4POP, I recognize that I am the primary caretaker in the healthy blueprint for organic, alive, nutritient dense food and supplements. I know that the power of organic food lies in its quality, vitality,and aliveness and that access is a fundamental human right. I know that eating healthy organic nutrient dense foods are best for my health. I choose food that is the result of pure seeds, sustainable farming practices, human dignity, economic affordabiity, and local -without deceptive advertizing, manipulation, misleading labels, or genetically altered genes. My greatest assets are my power to choose and my voice to be heard.

Therefore, I am committed to the following:

• I PLEDGE to transition to 75% to 100% organic food as much as possible for myself, my family and children by December 31, 2013;
• I PLEDGE to educate myself on GE (Genetically Engineered) food and supplements and to avoid purchasing these for myself and my family and children whenever possible;
• I PLEDGE to become a voice in the lives of my family and community by sharing what I know about healthier food choices
• I PLEDGE to establish a healthy food legacy for the children of my home, my community and the world;
• I PLEDGE to declare that the right to quality, unaltered food the way nature intended is a Human Right;
• I PLEDGE to protect the highest standards for organic, alive, nutritious, sustainable foods, seeds and whole food supplements;
• I PLEDGE to be a MOM4POP who continually educates myself about healthier food and supplement choices, speaks out boldly, supports government policies that support my pledge, and makes a difference by my actions and pocketbook.

Name:

Email:

City and Zip Code:

send to –  rudi@popcampaign.org

Letter format example for MOMS4POP ACTION: Please fax us a copy for our records at 415-388-1659 – or email it to rudi@popcampaign.org

Fax to:  202-228-2382

Senator Barbara Boxer

112 Hard Senate Office Building

Washington, DC  20510

Dear Senator Boxer:

As a California resident, a supporter of the POP Campaign and a MOM4POP, I am writing to ask that you do all you can to promote and protect organic foods. I am very concerned that the FDA has dropped the ball on mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.  As one of your constituents, I am asking that you introduce legislation as soon as possible to require mandatory clear labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

I have made a pledge to do my part to keep my family healthy and to support California organic farms by consuming mostly organic and sustainable foods.

STATE SOMETHING PERSONAL: FOR EXAMPLE: I am increasingly concerned about contamination of our organic food supply by genetically engineered materials and want stronger protections. OR I want stronger protections OR I want my choices at the supermarket to be very clearly labeled OR I am fearful that my child will purchase GE foods and not know the difference at the supermarket.

I need you to help me keep my pledge.

Sincerely,

Name:

Email:

Address (at minimum city and zip code)

Boxer, DeFazio Join Colleagues in Urging FDA to Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

55 Senate and House Lawmakers Call on Agency to Ensure Consumers Can Make Informed Choices About What They Eat

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) today joined with 53 other Senate and House lawmakers in sending a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods so that consumers can make informed choices about what they feed their families.

The Senate and House lawmakers wrote in support of a petiton– supported by hundreds of organizations and businesses – that calls on the FDA to protect consumers’ rights by ensuring that all genetically engineered foods are properly labeled. Polls have consistently shown that consumers are surprised to learn that genetically engineered foods are not identified and they strongly support a federal requirement to label these products.

The lawmakers wrote, “We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world. FDA has a clear opportunity to protect a consumer’s right to know, the freedom to choose what we feed our families, and the integrity of our free and open markets with this petition.”

In addition to Senator Boxer and Congressman DeFazio, the letter was signed by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Mark Begich (D-AK), Jon Tester (D-MT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Representatives Richard Hanna (R-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), George Miller (D-CA), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Peter Welch (D-VT), Hansen Clarke (D-MI), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU), James Moran (D-VA), John Olver (D-MA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Pete Stark (D-CA), Howard Berman (D-CA), Robert Brady (D-PA), David Cicilline (D-RI), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-NY), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Janice Hahn (D-CA), Michael Honda (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Jackie Speier (D-CA), John Tierney (D-MA), Mel Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Grace Napolitano (D-CA).

The full text of the lawmakers’ letter is below:

March 12, 2012
The Honorable Margaret Hamburg
Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740-3835

Dear Commissioner Hamburg,

We write to you in support of a recent legal petition, supported by over 400 organizations and businesses, to protect consumer rights and prevent consumer deception by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods. FDA’s regulatory regime for food labeling is inadequate and uses 19th century concepts to regulate 21st century food technologies.

As you know, in its 1992 policy statement, FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling because they were not “materially” different from other foods. In that policy statement, the agency severely limited what it considered “material” to only changes in food that could be recognized by taste, smell, or other senses. The use of novel food technologies like genetic engineering on a commercial scale has so far slipped underneath FDA’s limited threshold for “materiality” because such technologies make silent, genetic, and molecular changes to food that are not capable of being detected by human senses. In its 2009 guidance to industry, FDA applied its outdated GE food labeling policy to GE animals without revisiting the scientific or legal merits of the standard. This decision is especially troubling given FDA’s current consideration of a GE salmon that would be the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption.

At issue is the fundamental right consumers have to make informed choices about the food they eat. Labeling foods doesn’t imply a product is unsafe or will be confusing to consumers as some may argue. The FDA requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives, and processes; providing basic information doesn’t confuse the public, it empowers them to make choices. Absent labeling, Americans are unable to choose for themselves whether to purchase GE foods. Polls have consistently shown that consumers are not only surprised to know that GE foods are not identified, but that they want the federal government to label these products. Since the labeling petition was filed in October 2011, nearly a million comments have been submitted in support of labeling.

The FDA has the opportunity and authority to do right by the American public. When issuing its rule requiring irradiated foods to be labeled, FDA stated in broad terms that a decision to require labeling is not just based on the physical changes to the food but also on whether consumers view such information as important, and whether the omission of label information may mislead a consumer. The fact that FDA has already adopted this broad interpretation of “material” facts demonstrates that it is a reasonable—and therefore permissible—interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

We urge you to fully review the facts, law, and science, and side with the American public by requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods as is done in nearly 50 countries throughout the world. FDA has a clear opportunity to protect a consumer’s right to know, the freedom to choose what we feed our families, and the integrity of our free and open markets with this petition. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cc: Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods

A simple letter to get out to your House of Representatives member – let’s educate them to the need for the freedom of choice.

Date:  ___________________

Representative _________________

US House of Representatives

Washington, DC

Dear Representative:

As my voice in Washington, I request that you co-sponsor HR 3553, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act. I, like a majority of Americans agree, with the findings of this bill that “genetically engineering foods results in the material change of such foods” and therefore according to a currently unenforced law, this material fact should be clearly provided on food labels.  Voluntary labeling has proven ineffective, therefore; mandatory labeling is urgently needed.

I want to know about when food contains or is produced with a genetically engineered material. The government has done a dismal job of protecting the public by allowing so many genetically engineered products into the food supply.  A mandatory label will at least give consumers accurate information so we can make our own choices in the marketplace.

Many Americans need to know of the potential transfer of allergens into food and other health risks.  I am concerned about potential environmental risks associated with the genetic engineering of crops; and many Americans have religiously and ethically based dietary restrictions which require labeling of genetically engineered foods.  Worldwide consumers and farmers are concerned about the entrance of plant and animal species that have been genetically engineered.  HR 3553 is a good first step on the right course of protecting heritage species and consumer choice.

The POP CAMPAIGN is most concerned about GE / GMO labeling – our ally in Washington has given us this heads up – act now – see the letter posted above.

American Consumers like our global neighbors have been vocal about our desire to have accurate labeling foods regarding the inclusion of genetically engineered ingredients.  A major advance took place in the international regulatory body, the Codex Alimentarius in 2011 when the delegation from the United States removed its decade long objection to a confirmation that individual nations may establish regulations regarding genetically engineered foods.

Members of the United States Congress have introduced legislation in response to growing concerns from consumers and the agricultural community that genetically engineered (sometimes referred to as ‘bioengineered’ or ‘genetically modified’ or “GMO”) seeds and foods are entering the marketplace without adequate protections to the organic/heritage seeds and without truthful labeling. Alaska legislators stood in defense of wild raised salmon last winter with bills and legislative maneuvers to keep the Federal Government (USDA/FDA) from approval genetically engineered salmon.  Congressman Kucinich has reintroduced 3 bills this term. These three bills address three aspects of genetic engineering including labeling, cultivation, and litigation.

From my meetings on the Hill with staff in Tea Party and conservative Republicans, the labeling bill (HR 355) is the one which will most easily gain bi-partisan support.

A Call to Action (1 page fax, email alert, phone calls) will be needed to generate support on these issues. A draft 1 page fax is in the works.

The Below Summary is provided by Representative Kucinich’s Office

Rep. Kucinich Genetically Engineered Food Legislation: A 3-Piece Framework:

I. The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act:

What the bill does:

• Requires food companies to label all foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered (GE) material and requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to periodically test products to ensure compliance;
• Authorizes voluntary, non-GE food labels, exempting food served in restaurants;
• Establishes a legal framework is to ensure the accuracy of labeling without creating significant economic hardship on the food production system.

II. The Genetically Engineered Safety Act:

What the bill does:

• Requires the FDA to screen all GE foods through the current food additive process to ensure safety for human consumption. Continues FDA discretion in applying the safety factors that are generally recognized as appropriate;
• Places a temporary moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops until all regulations required by the bill are in effect;
• Requires that unique concerns regarding GE foods be explicitly examined in the review process; provides for a phase out of antibiotic resistance markers; implements a prohibition on known allergens; and requires the FDA to conduct a public comment period of at least 30 days;
• Places a permanent moratorium on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops grown in an open-air environment and on pharmaceutical crops and industrial crops grown in a commonly used food source;
• Requires the United States Department of Agriculture to establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of all pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts to prevent contamination;
• Calls on the National Academy of Sciences to submit to Congress a report that explores alternative methods to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals that have the advantage of being conducted in controlled production facilities and do not present the risk of contamination.

III. The Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act:

What the bill does:

• Farmers may save seeds and seek compensation for failed genetically engineered crops;
• Biotech companies may not: shift liability to farmers; nor require access to farmer’s property; nor mandate arbitration; nor mandate court of jurisdiction; nor require damages beyond actual fees; nor charge more to American farmers for use of this technology, than they charge farmers in other nations, or any other unfair condition;
• Seed companies must: ensure seeds labeled non-GE are accurate; provide clear instructions to reduce cross-pollination, which contaminates other fields; and inform farmers of the risks of using genetically engineered crops;
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to evaluate the concern of Bt resistant pests and take actions necessary to prevent resistance to Bt, an important organic pesticide;
• Prohibits genetic engineering designed to produce sterile seeds;
• Loan discrimination based on the choice of seeds an agricultural producer uses is prohibited;
• Place all liability from negative impacts of genetically engineered organisms squarely upon the biotechnology companies that created the genetically engineered organism;
• Farmers are granted indemnification to protect them from the liabilities of biotech companies;
• Prohibits any transfer of liability away from the biotechnology companies that created the genetically

Advocating Farmers Markets

Part of the growing trend to consumer organic foods is seen in farmers’ markets.  A recent article in the Greenville News stated, “Farmers’ markets play a major role in the economic growth of the state,” said Hugh Weathers, South Carolina’s commissioner of agriculture. “When people visit farmers’ markets, it’s more than just a place to buy fresh fruits and vegetables. It’s an opportunity to help maintain important social ties, linking urban and rural populations.”

While the US Government still seems focused on promoting the industry position of biotech plants and chemical pesticides, other nations, like American consumers are focused on promoting organics.  For example, in India, the government has recently launched a campaign to promote organic farming. The government is offering subsidies to farmers for taking up organic farming of vegetables and to check rampant use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on vegetable farms. They are moving to increase organic farming from 500 hectares to 6,000 hectares over the next four years in one district and 8,570 in another district. This clearly is an example that the US could follow –especially in relationship to the Farm Bill subsidies allocations coming up in 2012.

Minnesota and California Courts Rule for Organic Farmer – Some Strides

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.  Oluf and Debra Johnson’s 1,500-acre organic farm has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson’s farm.  The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson’s farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. The Johnson’s took their loss the first time, but after PFU continued to break the law three more years in a row, and spray chemicals on windy days, thus contaminating the organic crop, the Johnson’s sued and settled out of court, a settlement which meant they sold their products at a lower price and not as organics.  In 2009, when PFU continued contaminated their fields, the Johnson’s sued again, this time for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. The Johnson’s appealed.  The Appeals Court ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.

In California, an organic farm recently won a million dollar lawsuit from a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away.  The entire season’s crop of herbs from organic farm was lost as a result.   The tide may be turning against GM producers whose materials contaminate neighboring farms with this new precedent.

Comment Submission:  Proposed Rulemaking on Federal Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing RegsReference Docket Number: [Doc. No. AO–FV–09–0138; AMS–FV–09–0029; FV09–970–1]

The POP Campaign (Preserve Organic Power), a voice of hundreds of thousands of consumers and families across this country, adamantly opposes the USDA’s proposed rulemaking to create a Federal Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing Regulation.  This rulemaking is neither needed nor desired.  The Federal government has in recent years enacted so many new laws to promote food safety, which in addition to the regulations that are already in place both at the Federal and State level, are sufficient to promote safer foods and processes.  Another layer simply does not make common sense nor is it cost effective; rather cost prohibitive. During these economic times, families in particular are being hit hard – and families are the basic fabric of a healthy America – we support regulations that help these families, not hinder their stability and foundational health.

Other Regulations Already Exist

State Regulations: As stated by the USDA, 90% or more of the leafy green vegetables grown in the United States are gown in California and Arizona both of whom have Leafy Green Marketing Agreements in place.  There is no need to implement yet another federal standard on the small farmers across the other 48 states.  Additionally, most producers of leafy green vegetables in the other states likely sell their products locally or intra-state to a neighboring state.

For farmers in California and Arizona, this new Federal agreement would provide an unreasonable additional layer of bureaucracy and costs, which will only drive the costs of leafy green vegetables higher.  As a Californian, I personally do not want this added burden. Americans, especially moms with families who we hear from, are already bearing the burden of substantially higher food costs during a time with high unemployment rates, skyrocketing fuel costs, and higher costs of living across the board.  This is not a time to bleed these families.

Federal Guidelines Already Exist

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already has in place two guidelines and is in the final stages of a leafy green specific guideline.  These guidelines, listed below are sufficient instruction at the Federal level.

The FDA currently has Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines including

1. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables’’(1998), and the
2. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables’’ (2008).
3. A new FDA Guideline entitled, ‘‘Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for Lettuce and Leafy Greens Supply Chain’’ is in the process of being finalized.

Furthermore, the FDA has a mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) regulation for manufacturers of fresh-cut leafy green vegetables.

Cost for Participation Presents an Undue Burden

As mentioned above, there are substantial costs associated with implementing this program.  These costs pose an unreasonable burden for both the farmer and the consumer, especially moms in this country.

• The USDA estimates that the cost per acre to become initially compliant will be $14-34 per acre.
• The USDA published two estimates for the annual cost of compliance:
  • $30-50 per acre
  • $48-105 per acre
  • Additionally, in California and Arizona, there would be additional costs for complying with the state marketing agreements. (This means even higher costs at the markets.)
  • Most small farms that produce leafy green vegetables also qualify as ‘handlers’ because they often market their products directly to consumer or to local markets.  The USDA provided that evidence shows that a small handler who is also a small producer would have audit verification or compliance related costs ranging from $67 to $95 per acre.  (For example, a 500 acre farm might incur greater than $45,000 up front and an additional $50,000 annually to become compliant. Most small farms likely cannot bear this burden and the higher costs will make them less competitive in the marketplace.)

Additionally, the fees required in the program will not cover the entire cost of managing this program. Guess what –the taxpayer and families will bear additional costs annually in the USDA budget and the consumer trickle down.

Organic Farms Are Already Heavy Regulated – make an exception

As provided by the USDA[1]:  An increasing number of U.S. farmers are adopting these systems in order to lower input costs, conserve nonrenewable resources, capture high-value markets, and boost farm income. The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 already facilitates domestic marketing of organically produced fresh and processed food, and assures consumers that such products meet consistent, uniform standards. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) finalized a rule to implement this legislation in 2002.  All but the smallest organic farmers and processors must be certified by a State or private agency accreditation under national standards. The program establishes:

• National production and handling standards for organically produced products, including a National List of substances that can and cannot be used.
• A national-level accreditation program for State and private organizations who must be accredited as certifying agents under the USDA national standards for organic certifiers.
• Requirements for labeling products as organic and containing organic ingredients.
• Rules for importation of organic agricultural products from foreign programs.

One possibility is to exempt organic farmers and small growers

Driving the Costs Up Will Reduce Access

The Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program of the USDA which Senator Tom Harkin has been a big supporter of, is the type of activity USDA should focus on, not the creation of a new monitoring program.  The Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Program funds the delivery of fresh fruits and vegetables to children in schools, especially to low-income children who might not otherwise have the opportunity to consume fresh produce.  Driving the costs higher only undermines this program and the goals of families everywhere who are struggling to stay afloat in these challenging times and still provide their families with fresh produce including leafy green vegetables.

Food prices across the board are skyrocketing, and vegetables are among the foods that have risen the greatest, up 50% from a year ago. Conservatively, 68% of women in this country cite that the financial strain of the economy is threatening the American family; 52% of women with children under the age of 18 are feeling a huge overwhelm by financial burdens. Moms are saying “stop; help us”.

The POP Campaign strongly urges the USDA to terminate this proposed program and focus instead on promoting organic, sustainable farmers and farming which will provide higher quality foods for the American consumer, especially economically burdened moms and families.

USDA Moves Forward with Proposed Rulemaking on Federal

Leafy Green Vegetable Marketing Regulation

July 2011:  Deadline fast approaching to Submit Comments (July 28)

Comments in Support or Opposition to Proposed Marketing Agreement No. 970:  (Leafy Green Vegetables) should be filed with

Hearing Clerk

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1031–S

Washington, DC 20250–9200

Fax: (202) 720–9776

Or via the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Reference Docket Number: [Doc. No. AO–FV–09–0138; AMS–FV–09–0029; FV09–970–1]

Background: A September 2006 food borne illness incidence involving leafy green vegetables (spinach) resulted in a massive recall of spinach for fear of Escherichia coli (E. coli) contamination. Subsequently in 2007, members of the California leafy green vegetable industry initiated the establishment of a State marketing agreement for handlers of leafy green vegetables in which 99 percent of leafy green vegetables were covered.  In October 2007, Arizona enacted regulations which covered 75% of their leafy green production.  According to the USDA, participation in both the California and Arizona programs are voluntary, however; the requirements of these State marketing agreements are mandatory for all signatories within each respective State.

In June 2009, the following organizations petitioned the Agricultural Marketing Service division of the USDA requested the agency launch a federal rulemaking:

• United Fresh Produce Association,
• Produce Marketing
• Association,
• Georgia Fresh Vegetable
• Association,
• Georgia Farm Bureau,
• Texas Vegetable Association,
• Arizona
• Farm Bureau, Leafy Greens Council,
• California Farm Bureau,
• California Leafy
• Greens Products Handler Marketing Agreement,
• Grower-Shipper Association of Central California,
• Western Growers, and
• The Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association.

These groups proposed “the establishment of a program that would oversee a systematic application of good agricultural production, handling, and manufacturing practices for leafy green vegetables. Proponents stated that the proposed agreement would minimize

the potential for microbial contamination in production and handling systems and would improve consumer confidence in leafy green vegetables in the United States market.”

The suggested program would:

• Have voluntary participation
• If company signs agreement would have mandatory compliance
• Administered by USDA with Industry Comprised Administrative Board
• Add two advisory bodies to (1) identification and development of audit
• Metrics and (2) to advise the administrative body on research and development projects administered under the program
• Financed primarily by fees assessed to signatory members based on their production
• Secondary financing through contributions for research
• Audit metrics would require USDA approval prior to implementation
• It was suggested that audits be conducted by USDA  Inspection Service or “or persons or organizations authorized to audit on its behalf”

The USDA in their rulemaking acknowledges that a number of organizations opposed the development of this marketing agreement.  They include:

• the National Organic Coalition (NOC)
• Beyond Pesticides
• Center for Food Safety
• Equal Exchange
• Food and Water Watch
• Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
• Midwest Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
• National Cooperative Grocers Association
• Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance,
• Northeast Organic Farming Association-Interstate Council
• Organically Grown Company
• Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA
• the Union of Concerned Scientists

Reasons for opposition by many included:

• Costs associated with becoming compliant
• The existing proliferation of audit requirements from private sector customers
• The addition of a new and potentially conflicting set of audit requirements, and
• ‘‘Audit Fatigue’’
• The need for science-based production and handling requirements need for adequate peer-review of scientific studies used to establish them
• Potential conflicts between existing Federal, State, and local conservation wildlife, and environmental regulations and any proposed metrics
• The need for recognition of organic and other nonconventional production and handling practices in the development of audit metrics;
• The appropriateness and authority for USDA oversight of the proposed agreement; and,
• Whether there was the need for a national program

90 % of Production Already Covered by State Agreements

The USDA acknowledges that while there is leafy green vegetable production in every state, that 75% of all leafy green vegetables sold in the United States are produced in California and that 15% are produced in Arizona.  (Both states already have Leafy Green Marketing Agreements in place.) The remaining 10% is spread throughout the other 48 states and typically comes from small to medium size farms.

Other Regulations Already Exist

The FDA currently has Good Agricultural Practice Guidelines including

1. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables’’(1998), and the
2. ‘‘Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables’’ (2008).
3. A new FDA Guideline entitled, ‘‘Commodity Specific Food Safety Guidelines for Lettuce and Leafy Greens Supply Chain’’ is in the process of being finalized.

Furthermore, the FDA has a mandatory Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) regulation for manufacturers of fresh-cut leafy green vegetables.

The AMS of the USDA, in partnership with State departments of agriculture, offers a voluntary, audit-based program that verifies adherence to the two FDA guidelines that are final above (and conceivable when the new FDA guidelines identified above will offer audits)

Cost for Participation is High

• The USDA estimates that the cost per acre to become initially compliant will be $14-34 per acre.  The USDA published two estimates for the annual cost of compliance:
  • $30-50 per acre
  • $48-105 per acre
  • Additionally, in California and Arizona, there would be additional costs for complying with the state marketing agreements.
  • Most small farms that produce leafy green vegetables also qualify as ‘handlers’ because they often market their products directly to consumer or to local markets.  The USDA provided that evidence shows that a small handler who is also a small producer would have audit verification or compliance related costs ranging from $67 to $95 per acre.